| Water Body Name: | Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8013500020081204163614 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
76407 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | US EPA added this listing in 2010 based on data from 3 sampling points that they identified were in Reach 6, TEM-1, TEM-2 and TEM-3. In fact, TEM-1 lies in Reach 1A, TEM-2 lies in Reach 2 and TEM-3 lies in Reach 5. There were 0 samples collected from Reach 6.
All the exceedances of the REC-1 objective were located at TEM-1. TEM-1 had the REC-1 beneficial use removed through a use attainability analysis and Basin Plan amendment that were approved by US EPA on April 8, 2015. From 2010 Listing Cycle: USEPA Final Approval Decision Details: The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following: USEPA added Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) to the list of water quality limited segments requiring a TMDL for indicator bacteria. This water body is designated as a Water Contact Recreation (REC1) water body either explicitly or implicitly as tributaries to other designated segments (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, Table 3-1, pp.3-23 - 3-35). The Santa Ana Basin Plan has the following water quality objective for fecal coliform to protect REC1 beneficial use: Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9) Recent monitoring data collected in this water body measures Escherichia coli (E. coli) indicator bacteria. E. coli is one species within the broader category of fecal coliform bacteria and monitoring data for E. coli can be used to evaluate whether the fecal coliform objective is being met in the subject water body. In addition, USEPA has recommended that California use USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) when there is no adopted E. coli standard. Specifically, USEPA recommends that for REC1 beneficial use the following criteria be used: Steady state geometric mean indicator density - 126 indicator densities/100ml Designated beach area (upper 75% confidence limit) - 235 indicator densities/100ml (EPA, 1986, Table 4, pp.15) USEPA compared the E. coli data for this water body to the Basin Plan's fecal coliform objective, as well as to USEPA's recommended E. coli criteria and the results were: 1. Twelve of the 77 samples taken exceeded the USEPA E. coli criteria (235 organisms/100ml). Ten of 26 samples taken from site 3 exceeded the recommended criteria. 2. Nine of the 77 samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan objective for fecal coliform (400 organisms/100ml). Nine of 26 samples taken from site 3 exceeded the objective. For this water body segment, sufficient exceedances of the fecal coliform objective and the USEPA recommended criteria exist to merit listings per the 10% exceedance threshold for conventional pollutants expressed in Table 3.2 of the State Listing Policy. For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their respective recommendation fields in this decision. Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary in accordance with USEPA's final decision. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | From 2010 Listing Cycle:
USEPA Final Approval Decision Details: The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following: USEPA added Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) to the list of water quality limited segments requiring a TMDL for indicator bacteria. This water body is designated as a Water Contact Recreation (REC1) water body either explicitly or implicitly as tributaries to other designated segments (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, Table 3-1, pp.3-23 - 3-35). The Santa Ana Basin Plan has the following water quality objective for fecal coliform to protect REC1 beneficial use: Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9) Recent monitoring data collected in this water body measures Escherichia coli (E. coli) indicator bacteria. E. coli is one species within the broader category of fecal coliform bacteria and monitoring data for E. coli can be used to evaluate whether the fecal coliform objective is being met in the subject water body. In addition, USEPA has recommended that California use USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) when there is no adopted E. coli standard. Specifically, USEPA recommends that for REC1 beneficial use the following criteria be used: Steady state geometric mean indicator density - 126 indicator densities/100ml Designated beach area (upper 75% confidence limit) - 235 indicator densities/100ml (EPA, 1986, Table 4, pp.15) USEPA compared the E. coli data for this water body to the Basin Plan's fecal coliform objective, as well as to USEPA's recommended E. coli criteria and the results were: 1. Twelve of the 77 samples taken exceeded the USEPA E. coli criteria (235 organisms/100ml). Ten of 26 samples taken from site 3 exceeded the recommended criteria. 2. Nine of the 77 samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan objective for fecal coliform (400 organisms/100ml). Nine of 26 samples taken from site 3 exceeded the objective. For this water body segment, sufficient exceedances of the fecal coliform objective and the USEPA recommended criteria exist to merit listings per the 10% exceedance threshold for conventional pollutants expressed in Table 3.2 of the State Listing Policy. For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their respective recommendation fields in this decision. Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary in accordance with USEPA's final decision. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26083 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 77 samples taken by Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project, 12 exceeded USEPA's recommended single sample standard and 10/26 exceeded at site 3 on the Temescal River (tem3).
Of the 77 samples taken by Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project, 9 exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective and 9/26 samples exceeded at site 3 on the Temescal River (tem3) |
||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| USEPA Partial Approval Disapproval Letter and enclosures for California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
| USEPA Final Decision Letter with enclosures and responsiveness summary regarding waters added to California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
| USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of indicator bacteria to California 2010 303(d) list for some Santa Ana River - Region 8 water bodies | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986: E. coli: log mean less than 126 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples per 30-day period, and single sample shall not exceed 235 organisms/100mL.
Santa Ana Region Basin Plan objective for Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9) |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at three sites Temescal River 1, 2, and 3 (tem1, tem2, tem3). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected weekly as follows: 29-Oct-02
9-Dec-02, 22-Dec-02, 4-Jan-03, 23-Jan-03, 20-Feb-03, 10-Mar-03, 24-Mar-03, 15-Apr-03, 21-May-03, 19-Jun-03, 17-Jul-03, 13-Aug-03, 17-Sep-03, 8-Oct-03, 18-Nov-03, 9-Dec-03, 23-Dec-03, 29-Jan-04, 4-Mar-04, 11-Apr-04, 6-May-04, 3-Jun-04. |
||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it was obtained under the auspices of a QAPP approved by the Regional Board. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95125 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Acrolein |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82581 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Acrolein | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria is 3 ug/L. (USEPA National Recomm. WQ Criteria, 4-day average) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95126 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82509 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria maximum concentration of Aldrin is 1.5 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95127 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82510 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR of 150 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The CTR for arsenic is 150 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95128 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82511 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 2.24 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95183 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82512 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria is 0.0043 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule (USEPA) for other waters.) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95184 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82513 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 178 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95185 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium, hexavalent |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82514 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium, hexavalent | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 11 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations for hexavalent chromium to protect aquatic life in California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. the CTR criteria for chromium, hexalent is 11 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95186 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82515 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 9 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95455 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82538 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. THE 4,4-DDT ISOMER WAS ASSESSED. The 4,4' DDT criterion is applicable to Total DDT. Total DDT is the sum of 4,4- and 2,4-isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Calif. Toxics Rule Criteria Continuous Concentration (4 days) for DDT is 0.001 ug/L for freshwater aquatic habitat. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95239 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82516 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria continuous concentration is 0.056 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95240 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the two (2) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of two (2) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82518 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria for Endosulfan II (beta-endosulfan) is 0.056 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average, total.) | ||||
| Guideline 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82517 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria for Endosulfan I (alpha-endosulfan)is 0.056 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule,(USEPA) four day average, total.) | ||||
| Guideline 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95241 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82519 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria is 0.036 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule (USEPA) for other waters.) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95242 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82520 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria for heptachlor is 0.00021 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule (USEPA) for other waters.) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95296 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (0) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82521 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the evaluation guideline of 1,000 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The evaluation guideline for lead is 1,000 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95297 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| 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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82522 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample did not exceed the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Calif. Toxics Rule acute criteria is 0.95 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95298 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the two (2) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the two (2) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82524 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CCC of 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (CCC) are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. Criterion derived from data for inorganic mercury (II), but is applied to total mercury. It will probably be underprotective if a substantial portion of mercury in the water column is methylmercury. Derivation of criterion did not consider exposure through the diet, which is probably important for aquatic life occupying upper trophic levels. The CCC for mercury is 0.77 ug/L. ref13 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | USEPA letter identifying microcystin toxins impaired portion as the reach of the Klamath River including the Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82523 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CCC of 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (CCC) are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The CCC for mercury is 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95299 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82525 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 52 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90877 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess the listing status.
One (1) of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seven (7) 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the seven (7) samples exceed the water quality Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82526 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples had an oxygen content below 5 mg/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: The dissolved oxygen content of surface waters shall not be depressed below 5mg/L for waters designated WARM. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on the following dates: 1/27/2010 8:30 2/2/2010 9:20 2/10/2010 11:20 2/16/2010 9:00 2/23/2010 12:00 3/2/2010 13:05 3/9/2010 11:15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95355 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82527 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria is 0.00017 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule (USEPA) for other waters.) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95404 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Pentachlorophenol (PCP) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82531 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pentachlorophenol (PCP) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria is 4 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average at pH6.5) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95405 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82535 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CCC of 5 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (CCC) are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The CCC for selenium is 5 ug/L.ref13 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | USEPA letter identifying microcystin toxins impaired portion as the reach of the Klamath River including the Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95406 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Silver |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82536 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 3.45 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations for silver to protect aquatic life in freshwater (1-hour average). The dissolved silver criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95407 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seven (7) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of seven (7) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82537 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples were above 78° F. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of waters designated WARM shall not be raised above 90°F June through October or above 78° during the rest of the year as a result of controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on the following dates: 1/27/2010 8:30 2/2/2010 9:20 2/10/2010 11:20 2/16/2010 9:00 2/23/2010 12:00 3/2/2010 13:05 3/9/2010 11:15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95456 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82539 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This data is not of sufficient resolution to determine if standards are being achieved, the reporting limit for the non-detected sample is greater than the criteria used to determine if water quality standards are being met. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criteria is 0.0002 ug/L. (Calif. Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average, total.) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The one sample was collected from Temescal Ck., Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Eslinore Outlet.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on February 2, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95457 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82549 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria of 118 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 2/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90876 |
Region 8 |
Temescal Creek, Reach 6 (Elsinore Groundwater sub basin boundary to Lake Elsinore Outlet) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess the listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seven (7) 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the seven (7) samples exceed the water quality Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82532 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples were outside the acceptable range for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Parameters in Temescal Creek Down Stream, 2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Objective: The pH of inland surface waters shall not be raised above 8.5 pH units or depressed below 6.5 pH units as a result of controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples was collected from down stream in Temescal Creek at 33 40' 50" N, 117 20' 00" W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on the following dates: 1/27/2010 8:30 2/2/2010 9:20 2/10/2010 11:20 2/16/2010 9:00 2/23/2010 12:00 3/2/2010 13:05 3/9/2010 11:15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The sample station is monitored as part of NPDES No. CA8000188 by Eastern Municipal Water District. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||