Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin Region

Water Body Name:	Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel
Water Body ID:	CAR7194700019990205111415
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	5970	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Pathogens
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2010
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pathogens consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. Line of Evidence No 4994 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water. There were a total of six water samples collected and analyzed for Enterococcus. When compared to the Basin Plan 100 MPN/100 ml Enterococcus threshold for RECI beneficial use, there were 5 exceedances. When compared to the Basin Plan 500 MPN/100ml Enterococcus threshold for RECII beneficial use, there were 3 exceedances. There were a total of six water samples collected and analyzed for E. coli. When compared to the Basin Plan 400 MPN/100 ml E. coli, there were no exceedances. When compared to the Basin Plan 2000 MPN/100ml E. coli threshold for RECII beneficial use, there were no exceedances. 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. At a minimum, 5 of 6 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5970, Pathogens	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4906

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, and 10/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from both locations (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in 2002. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/03/2002 through 11/04/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5970, Pathogens	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4896

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/09/2002, 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from the two different locations (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/09/2002 through 11/04/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5970, Pathogens	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5113

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5970, Pathogens	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5110

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5970, Pathogens	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4664

Pollutant:

Pathogens

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	5352	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. There were a total of twelve fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 6.1 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were 7 exceedances out of 7 acceptable fish tissue samples taken, five fish tissue sample result were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were 6 exceedances. 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. At a minimum, 7 of 7 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5352, Toxaphene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5436

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5352, Toxaphene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5655

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/30/1996; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5352, Toxaphene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

2877

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Three out of 8 samples exceeded. Four whole fish composite samples of red shiner, 3 whole fish composite samples of tilapia, and one composite sample of redbelly tilapia were collected. Red shiner were collected in 1992, 1995, and 2000-01. Tilapia were collected in 1996, 1999, and 2002. Redbelly tilapia were collected in 1995. The guideline was exceeded in 1996 tilapia and 2000-01 red shiner (TSMP, 2002).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Colorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

100 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)].

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

The Coachella Valley Storm Channel from Lincoln Street to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. One station located at foot of Lincoln Street was sampled and was in exceedance.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected annually in 1992, 1995-96, 1999, and 2000-02.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.
Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.
Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17260	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane \| 1,1-Dichloropropene \| 1,2,3-Trichloropropane \| 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane \| 1,3-Dichloropropane \| 2,2-Dichloropropane \| Bromochloromethane \| Chloroform \| Ethylene dibromide \| Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, and 1,1-Dichloropropene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17260, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29624

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8281	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8281, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4995

Pollutant:

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8332	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8332, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8319	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8319, 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17292	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene \| 1,3-Dichloropropene \| Chloroethane \| Dichlorodifluoromethane \| Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17292, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29643

Pollutant:

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | 1,3-Dichloropropene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17253	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene \| 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene \| Bromobenzene \| Cumene \| delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) \| n-Butylbenzene \| n-Propylbenzene \| sec-Butylbenzene \| tert-Butylbenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17253, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29622

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17253, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29957

Pollutant:

delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. No sample was collected from the outlet location in October of 2002. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8297	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8297, 1,2-Dichloroethane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8298	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloropropane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8298, 1,2-Dichloropropane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17264	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1-Methylnaphthalene \| 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene \| 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene \| 2-Methylnaphthalene \| Acenaphthylene \| Naphthalene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17264, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29960

Pollutant:

1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17264, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29627

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17262	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	1-Methylphenanthrene \| Phenanthrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17262, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29959

Pollutant:

1-Methylphenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17262, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29626

Pollutant:

1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17254	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	2-Chlorotoluene \| 4-Chlorotoluene \| p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17254, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29623

Pollutant:

2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17293	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	2-Hexanone \| Acetone \| Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) \| Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17293, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29644

Pollutant:

2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8282	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Acenaphthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8282, Acenaphthene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17453	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Acenaphthene \| Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Acenaphthene, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17453, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29988

Pollutant:

Acenaphthene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8299	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Aldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8299, Aldrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8299, Aldrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5571

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17452	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Aldrin \| Chlorpyrifos \| Diazinon \| Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17452, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29987

Pollutant:

Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17450	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Aluminum \| Manganese \| Silver
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17450, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29985

Pollutant:

Aluminum | Manganese | Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17280	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Ametryn \| Prometryn \| Simetryn \| Terbutryn
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17280, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29637

Pollutant:

Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8289	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8289, Anthracene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17297	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Anthracene \| Benzo(a)anthracene \| Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17297, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29979

Pollutant:

Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8279	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Arsenic
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5280 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5280 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5104 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8279, Arsenic	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4992

Pollutant:

Arsenic | Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8279, Arsenic	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8279, Arsenic	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5528

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the analyte was not measured in the samples. The 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 9/16/1992, 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8279, Arsenic	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5280

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8279, Arsenic	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5001

Pollutant:

Arsenic | Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).

Guideline Reference:

Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17281	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Atroton \| Prometon (Prometone) \| Secbumeton
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Atroton, Prometon, and Secbumeton consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17281, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29638

Pollutant:

Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17267	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) \| Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Azinphos, methyl, and Azinphos, ethyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17267, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29630

Pollutant:

Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8339	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8339, Benzene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8290	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment guidelines. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8290, Benzo(a)anthracene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8290, Benzo(a)anthracene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5103

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8316	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8316, Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4959

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May of 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8316, Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17279	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) \| Benzo[g,h,i]perylene \| Biphenyl \| Terbufos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17279, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29635

Pollutant:

Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17279, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29968

Pollutant:

Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8313	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8313, Benzo[b]fluoranthene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17299	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzo[b]fluoranthene \| Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17299, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29981

Pollutant:

Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8314	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8314, Benzo[k]fluoranthene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17273	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Bolstar \| Chlordane \| Ciodrin \| Dacthal \| Demeton s \| Dichlorvos \| Dimethoate \| Disulfoton \| Endrin Ketone \| Ethoprop \| Famphur \| Mirex \| Naled \| Oxadiazon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17273, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29964

Pollutant:

Dacthal | Mirex | Oxadiazon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17273, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29633

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8292	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Bromoform
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8292, Bromoform	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8306	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Cadmium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5281 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5281 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5104 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8306, Cadmium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8306, Cadmium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4993

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8306, Cadmium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5281

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17455	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Carbon (organic)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17455, Carbon (organic)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29992

Pollutant:

Carbon (organic)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8318	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Carbon tetrachloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8318, Carbon tetrachloride	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17265	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Carbophenothion \| Dichlofenthion \| Dioxathion \| Ethion \| Fenitrothion \| Fensulfothion \| Fenthion \| Malathion \| Methidathion \| Methyl Parathion \| Parathion \| Tokuthion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, and Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17265, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29628

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17265, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29961

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion | Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8300	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8300, Chlordane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8300, Chlordane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5579

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8300, Chlordane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5519

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. An exceedance was found in one sample collected on 5/21/1986.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17269	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Chlorfenvinphos \| Chlorpyrifos, methyl \| Cuomaphos \| Dicrotophos \| Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) \| Fenchlorphos \| Leptophos \| Merphos \| Mevinphos \| Tetrachlorvinphos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17269, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29631

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8293	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Chlorobenzene (mono)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8293, Chlorobenzene (mono)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8322	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8322, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5520

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8280	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Chromium (total)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 5243 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5243 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5104 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8280, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4992

Pollutant:

Arsenic | Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8280, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8280, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5243

Pollutant:

Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected. A sample was collected on 10/28/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	8310	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Chrysene (C1-C4)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8310, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5103

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8310, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8307	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Copper
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. Line of Evidence No. 5283 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5283 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5104 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 9 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8307, Copper	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5283

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8307, Copper	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8307, Copper	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5001

Pollutant:

Arsenic | Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8307, Copper	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4919

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8323	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8323, Diazinon	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5521

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8323, Diazinon	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5002

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

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 from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8291	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8291, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17291	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Dibenzothiophene \| o-Xylene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17291, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29976

Pollutant:

Dibenzothiophene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17291, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29642

Pollutant:

Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17454	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Dichlorobenzophenone
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Dichlorobenzophenone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17454, Dichlorobenzophenone	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29989

Pollutant:

Dichlorobenzophenone

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8294	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Dichlorobromomethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8294, Dichlorobromomethane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8324	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Dichloromethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8324, Dichloromethane	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5000

Pollutant:

Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8287	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Endosulfan
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines and these do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8287, Endosulfan	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5522

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8287, Endosulfan	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5605

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8288	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8288, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17300	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate \| alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) \| beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17300, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29983

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8301	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Endrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or Nation Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 9 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8301, Endrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8301, Endrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8301, Endrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5523

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8301, Endrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5102

Pollutant:

Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8301, Endrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5613

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8302	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Endrin aldehyde
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8302, Endrin aldehyde	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8334	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Ethion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8334, Ethion	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5524

Pollutant:

Ethion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8329	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Ethylbenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8329, Ethylbenzene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8311	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8311, Fluoranthene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5103

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8311, Fluoranthene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8312	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Fluorene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8312, Fluorene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8312, Fluorene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5103

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8303	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8303, Heptachlor	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8303, Heptachlor	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5623

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8304	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 2 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8304, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8304, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5632

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8304, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5525

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17449	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Heptachlor \| Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17449, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29984

Pollutant:

Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8335	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8335, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5526

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17451	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB \| Methoxychlor \| alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) \| beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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 alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17451, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29986

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8330	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobutadiene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8330, Hexachlorobutadiene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8328	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8328, Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

6732

Pollutant:

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17295	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Hydroxide \| Pheophytin a
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17295, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29645

Pollutant:

Hydroxide | Pheophytin a

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality sample were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Two water samples were collected. The water sample were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site, and where Avenue 52 crosses over the stormwater channel.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8317	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8317, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4999

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8308	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Lead
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5284 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5284 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence 5104 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8308, Lead	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5284

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8308, Lead	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8308, Lead	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4993

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8327	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8327, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5527

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8327, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

6740

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8327, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5102

Pollutant:

Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8305	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 7 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guidelines. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8305, Mercury	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8305, Mercury	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8305, Mercury	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

26720

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8325	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Methyl bromide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8325, Methyl bromide	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5000

Pollutant:

Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8309	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Nickel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 7 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8309, Nickel	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5104

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8309, Nickel	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4996

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8309, Nickel	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4993

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17277	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Oxychlordane \| Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) \| Phorate \| Phosmet \| Phosphamidon \| Sulfotep \| Tedion \| Thionazin \| Trichlorfon \| Trichloronate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17277, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29965

Pollutant:

Oxychlordane | Tedion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17277, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29634

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17277, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29966

Pollutant:

Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Perylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17282	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Propazine \| Terbuthylazine
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17282, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29639

Pollutant:

Propazine | Terbuthylazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8315	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8315, Pyrene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5103

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8315, Pyrene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17296	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Salinity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 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 Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17296, Salinity	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29646

Pollutant:

Salinity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Three water samples were collected. The water sample were collected and analyzed from April 2003 through May 2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8338	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Selenium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of five sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30275 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. 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 9 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water qualty objective. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8338, Selenium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5530

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in 1987. One tilapia fish composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8338, Selenium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5529

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Chemical monitoring of sediments

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Downloadable data of chemical analysis results from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) webpage, containing program data for the years 1978-2000. Data pertaining specifically to Region 7 was downloaded from the SWRCB website in August 2007 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Redwood Creek Rotary Screw Trap Downstream Migration Study Redwood Valley, Humboldt County, California April 4 - August 5, 2000. Draft Report

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Samples were not collected every sampling round.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8338, Selenium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

30275

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8338, Selenium	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4956

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8320	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Silver
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8320, Silver	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4993

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17289	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Streptococcus, fecal
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 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 fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17289, Streptococcus, fecal	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29641

Pollutant:

Streptococcus, fecal

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street, and where Avenue 52 crosses over the stormchannel.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8331	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Tetrachloroethylene/PCE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8331, Tetrachloroethylene/PCE	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17287	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17287, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29640

Pollutant:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17287, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29970

Pollutant:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Four sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8333	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Trichloroethylene/TCE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8333, Trichloroethylene/TCE	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4998

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8326	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Vinyl chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8326, Vinyl chloride	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5000

Pollutant:

Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8321	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5285 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5285 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 4967 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline.These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8321, Zinc	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4993

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8321, Zinc	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4967

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8321, Zinc	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5285

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17266	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	alpha-Chlordene \| gama-Chlordene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17266, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29629

Pollutant:

alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17266, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29962

Pollutant:

alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8285	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8285, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8285, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8283	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8283, alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8284	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8284, beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8286	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the Calfornia Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8286, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8286, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17261	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	cis-Nonachlor \| trans-Nonachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17261, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29625

Pollutant:

cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17261, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29958

Pollutant:

cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8295	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	m-Dichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8295, m-Dichlorobenzene	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17272	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) \| o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) \| o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) \| p,p'-DDMU
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on 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. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17272, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

29632

Pollutant:

o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.

Temporal Representation:

Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8337	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	p,p'-DDE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample 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 this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8337, p,p'-DDE	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4856

Pollutant:

p,p'-DDE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven water samples were taken at one location on the river. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 4/10/2003, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8296	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8296, p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4997

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8336	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective 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:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8336, pH	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5333

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-three water quality measurements were taken at 1 location along the channel, generally collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-three measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Nineteen measurements were collected from 1963-1969, no measurements were collected from 1970-1979, no measurements were collected from 1980-1989, one measurement was collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8336, pH	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5116

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nine water quality measurements were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Nine measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in May and October of 2002.Measurements were collected in May and Octboer 2002 at the Avenue 52 location.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8276	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There were a total of seven water samples collected. When compared to the California Toxics Rule 1.1 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. There were a total of 12 fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 21 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 11 exceedances. When compared to the NAS 1000 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were 2 exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on 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. At a minimum, 11 out of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8276, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8276, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5587

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 5/21/1986.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8276, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5433

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 7 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8277	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. There were a total of seven water samples collected. When compared to the CTR 0.24 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. There were a total of twelve fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 0.46 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were 6 exceedances out of 6 acceptable fish tissue samples taken, six fish tissue sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. There were a total of nine sediment samples collected. When compared to the sediment quality guideline 61.8 ug/g threshold, there were no exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on 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. At a minimum, 6 out of 6 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8277, Dieldrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5102

Pollutant:

Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8277, Dieldrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5434

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8277, Dieldrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5598

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8277, Dieldrin	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

4994

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8278	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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. There were a total of twelve fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 3.6 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were 4 exceedances out of 4 acceptable fish tissue samples taken, eight fish tissue sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. When compared to the NAS 500 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on 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. At a minimum, 4 out of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 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.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8278, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5435

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Four fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999, and 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8278, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

LOE ID:

5644

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.