Water Body Name: | Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
Water Body ID: | CAR7194700019990205111415 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
76465 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twelve of 17 total fraction and one of two dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.Twelve of 17 total fraction and one of two dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. This pollutant is a possible cause or contributor to toxicity. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | . |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128963 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2010-10-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 8 samples collected by SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Survival, Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Young/female | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32406 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of seven samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for total ammonia as nitrogen. All of the exceedances occurred from October 2005 to May 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan objective for toxicity states that all waters shall be mainted free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigienous aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended freshwater aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen is based on pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages of fish. The continuous concentration used is based on a 30-day average and the absence of early life stages of fish. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at stations Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT) and Coachella Valley Stormchannel [Ave 52] (719CVSC52). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Coachella Valley Stormchannel [Ave 52] samples were collected from October 2005 through May 2006. Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet samples were collected from May 2006 through October 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127018 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 8 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70954 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of 15 water samples and zero of 14 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31975 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Two of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survival and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at stations 719CVSC52 and 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2005 to October 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32018 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from May 2006 to April 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125386 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 4 samples collected by SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-10-12. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125404 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 4 samples collected by SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 719CVSCOT ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-10-11 and 2014-10-22. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32019 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in October 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 8 samples collected by SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Survival, Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Young/female | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71461 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL |
TMDL Project Code: | 16 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/27/2012 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens, Enterococcus, and Escherichia coli (E. coli) but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33243 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the entercoccus objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in October 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5113 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5110 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4664 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33244 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the E. coli objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in October 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129095 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the two sample collected exceeded the E. coli objective. The sample collected from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52 exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52 and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet station 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 4/22/2013 from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52 and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet station 719CVSCOT. . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126140 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 2 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality standard for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-04-22 and 2013-04-22 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4896 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/09/2002, 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from the two different locations (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/09/2002 through 11/04/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4906 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, and 10/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from both locations (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in 2002. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/03/2002 through 11/04/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
127872 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2035 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This impairment will be addressed by a control plan implemented by Order R7-2020-0026, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Waste From Irrigated Agricultural Lands for Dischargers that are Members of a Coalition Group in the Coachella Valley - Riverside County. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under sections 4.1 and 4.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. At least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List Twenty-one lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twelve of 12 total fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms" beneficial use assessed. Four of seven fish fillet fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms" beneficial use assessed. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twelve of 12 total fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms" beneficial use assessed. Four of seven fish fillet fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms" beneficial use assessed. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45902 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125819 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total DDTs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total DDTs is 572 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125910 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total DDTs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total DDTs is 572 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34524 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p'). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 220732 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Not Recorded | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Kern River, North Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | This is a placeholder LOE use to generate a decision on the 2020 cyce. It should not be considered for assessment and should be deleted once it has been used for its purpose. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Placeholder | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32393 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected was 28.572 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32958 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32392 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected was 0.906 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125554 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDT from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDT is 62.9 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125578 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDT from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDT is 62.9 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT, 719CVSC52). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32937 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5433 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 7 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46758 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, all fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996 and 12/08/1999; 1 tilapia fish fillet samples collected on 11/17/1997; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5587 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 5/21/1986. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127139 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(4,4') criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-04-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127138 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(4,4') criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-04-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126323 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). Of these, 1 species (Common Carp) exceeded the water quality standard. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126410 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 2 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). Of these, 2 species (Common Carp, Tilapia spp.) exceeded the water quality standard. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46083 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126437 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126314 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
127641 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2035 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This impairment will be addressed by a control plan implemented by Order R7-2020-0026, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Waste From Irrigated Agricultural Lands for Dischargers that are Members of a Coalition Group in the Coachella Valley - Riverside County. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nineteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Six total fraction and 2 fish fillet fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six total fraction and two fish fillet fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 220733 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Not Recorded | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Kern River, North Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | This is a placeholder LOE use to generate a decision on the 2020 cyce. It should not be considered for assessment and should be deleted once it has been used for its purpose. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Placeholder | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127157 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35306 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35280 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128921 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5598 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46756 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5434 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125595 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dieldrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Dieldrin is 61.8 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35323 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35502 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125689 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dieldrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Dieldrin is 61.8 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45905 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126494 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45904 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126419 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126178 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 4 fish species (2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). Of these species, 1 species (Tilapia spp.) exceeded the evaluation guideline. Although a total of 5 samples were collected 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2015-11-17 and 2015-11-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5102 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
127642 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2035 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This impairment will be addressed by a control plan implemented by Order R7-2020-0026, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Waste From Irrigated Agricultural Lands for Dischargers that are Members of a Coalition Group in the Coachella Valley - Riverside County. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 and 4.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 4.6, at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutants. Four of four total fraction tissue samples and two of ten total fraction water samples exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of four total fraction tissue samples and two of ten total fraction water samples exceeded the objective(s). This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. This pollutant is a possible cause or contributor to toxicity. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 8 samples collected by SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Survival, Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Young/female | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 220734 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Not Recorded | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Kern River, North Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | This is a placeholder LOE use to generate a decision on the 2020 cyce. It should not be considered for assessment and should be deleted once it has been used for its purpose. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Placeholder | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33412 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127651 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The PCB, total Congeners criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00017 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT, 719CVSC52) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5644 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5435 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Four fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999, and 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33231 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125444 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total PCBs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PCBs is 676 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125556 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total PCBs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PCBs is 676 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33419 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/2/2006, 10/22/2007 and 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45919 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45918 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
129841 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2035 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This impairment will be addressed by a control plan implemented by Order R7-2020-0026, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Waste From Irrigated Agricultural Lands for Dischargers that are Members of a Coalition Group in the Coachella Valley - Riverside County. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOEs 45922 and 5655 are combined to determine the use rating. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Three samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven total fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. Six of 12 total fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2877 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three out of 8 samples exceeded. Four whole fish composite samples of red shiner, 3 whole fish composite samples of tilapia, and one composite sample of redbelly tilapia were collected. Red shiner were collected in 1992, 1995, and 2000-01. Tilapia were collected in 1996, 1999, and 2002. Redbelly tilapia were collected in 1995. The guideline was exceeded in 1996 tilapia and 2000-01 red shiner (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Colorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | 100 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)]. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The Coachella Valley Storm Channel from Lincoln Street to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. One station located at foot of Lincoln Street was sampled and was in exceedance. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected annually in 1992, 1995-96, 1999, and 2000-02. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.
Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5436 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5655 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/30/1996; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225935 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Not Recorded | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Kern River, North Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | This is a placeholder LOE use to generate a decision on the 2020 cyce. It should not be considered for assessment and should be deleted once it has been used for its purpose. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Placeholder | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Placeholder | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126158 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Toxaphene. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-12-01 and 2011-12-01 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45921 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126320 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Toxaphene. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45922 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
73624 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127488 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34750 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
78917 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127493 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34771 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70512 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six total fraction and none of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126978 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4995 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35647 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70177 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six total fraction and none of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128471 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34739 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70022 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six total fraction and none of six dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34774 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128872 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichloroethylene, 1,1-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
78918 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of three water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria. Although an additional 3 samples were collected, these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34795 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128966 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 0.076 ug/l for water and fish consumption. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-04-22 to 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103356 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six total fraction water samples exceeded the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) notification level. None of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the objective as no evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29622 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128485 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Deparment of Public Health (CDPH) notification level for 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene is 330 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70775 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six total fraction and none of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34765 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128868 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichloroethane, 1,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
78919 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34817 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichloroethylene, trans 1,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70776 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloropropane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six total fraction and none of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34797 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloropropane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127766 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloropropane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichloropropane, 1,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71562 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of eight total fraction and none of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127391 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Acenaphthene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Acenaphthene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,700 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70050 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 fish fillet fraction and none of 12 total fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 17 total fraction and none of seven dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | . |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46070 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128907 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Aldrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34803 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5571 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128974 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34823 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126636 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Aldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Aldrin. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70758 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. None of seven dissolved fraction and none of eight total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 125638 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125780. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32800 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 5 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following stations: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) (719CVSC52) and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125638 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Anthrazene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Anthrazene is 845 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128139 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Anthracene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Anthracene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 110,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125780 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Anthrazene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Anthrazene is 845 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71879 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Zero out of 0 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater of 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000) for the beneficial use, Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero out of zero fish fillet fraction tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue of 0.0034 ppm for the beneficial use, Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Zero out of 4 total fraction sediment samples exceeded the probable effect concentration for Arsenic of 33 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) for the beneficial use, Warm Freshwater Habitat. However the sampling dates for this set of samples overlaps with another set and was not included in the final use rating. Zero out of 19 total fraction sediment samples exceeded the probable effect concentration for Arsenic of 33 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) for the beneficial use, Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero out of 3 total fraction tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999) for the beneficial use, Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms. Zero out of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses of 340 ug/l Arsenic for the beneficial use, Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero out of 9 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses of 0.25 mg/l Arsenic (USDOI, 1998) for the beneficial use, Warm Freshwater Habitat. However the sampling dates for this set of samples overlaps with another set and was not included in the final use rating. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125475 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Arsenic from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Arsenic is 33 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125672 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Arsenic from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Arsenic is 33 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5280 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35470 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5528 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the analyte was not measured in the samples. The 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 9/16/1992, 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4992 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Chromium (total) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127066 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 150 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5001 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35221 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46071 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76052 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Atrazine |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50. None of nine water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127264 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of < 1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a \less-than\" value (for example, <1,500) and may underestimate toxicity." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35263 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
103394 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the objective(s) as no evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Zero of zero total fraction water samples exceeded National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Although a total of 11 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29630 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35289 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128920 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Azinphos Methyl. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) expressed as a 4-day average for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70239 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. The sample size for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination is less than 16. None of six dissolved fraction and none of six total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128069 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Benzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35354 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70924 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objective(s). At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. None of six dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of eight total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. LOE 125849 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125447. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35330 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125447 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benz(a)anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Benz[a]anthrazene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Benz[a]anthrazene is 1050 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125849 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benz(a)anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Benz[a]anthrazene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Benz[a]anthrazene is 1050 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128064 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Benz(a)anthracene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzo(a)anthracene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.049 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70926 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 125468 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125872. None of six dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125468 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benzo(a)pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Benzo[a]pyrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Benzo[a]pyrene is 1450 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125872 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benzo(a)pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Benzo[a]pyrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Benzo[a]pyrene is 1450 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4959 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128076 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Benzo(a)pyrene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzo(a)Pyrene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.049 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34997 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79769 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 dissolved fraction and none of 7 total fraction water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. 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 is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Benzo(b)fluoranthene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzo(b)flouranthene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.049 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70806 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo[k]fluoranthene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Tw lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 dissolved fraction and none of 7 total fraction water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. 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 is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127838 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Benzo(k)fluoranthene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzo(k)Fluoranthene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.049 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71513 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One water and one sediment sample exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One water and one sediment sample exceeded the water quality objectives. The sample size for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination is less than 16. One of 11 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). LOE 125548 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125674. One of ten water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127847 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Bifenthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125674 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33995 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for bifenthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The guideline 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35416 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125548 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46339 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Seven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
70332 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Bromoform |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 dissolved fraction and none of 6 total fraction water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. 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 is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35204 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromoform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128764 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromoform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Bromoform. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
69939 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. None of 27 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 125651 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125879. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5281 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32832 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128809 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46072 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125651 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Cadmium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Cadmium is 4.98 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35483 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35248 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46757 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125879 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Cadmium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Cadmium is 4.98 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
69890 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. The sample size for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination is less than 16. None of six dissolved fraction and none of six total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128879 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Carbon Tetrachloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35271 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70930 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of ten sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 32372 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 33649. LOE 125487 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125637. One of 12 total fraction and zero of seven fish fillet fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance. LOE 5519 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 46754. Zero of seven total fraction and zero of seven dissolved water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46080 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33362 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126665 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126153 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126312 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32372 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected was non-detect and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125487 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chlordane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chlordane is 17.6 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32848 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33649 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected was non-detect for chlordane concentration. (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chlordane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chlordane is 17.6 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5519 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. An exceedance was found in one sample collected on 5/21/1986. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46754 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. An exceedance was found in one sample collected on 5/21/1986. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
DECISION ID |
76666 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of seven total fraction and zero of 48 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 7 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126801 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 36 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (TEPA29-SW-1D, TEPA29-SW-1F, TEPA29-SW-3) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-12 and 2012-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128100 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71033 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorobenzene (mono) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 total fraction or 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35312 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorobenzene (mono) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128429 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorobenzene (mono) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103402 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorodibromomethane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the three samples exceed the water quality objective. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127875 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorodibromomethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dibromochloromethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlorodibromomethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 34 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103403 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chloroform |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. The sample size for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination is less than 16. None of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the objective as no evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. None of six total fraction water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35337 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloroform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127330 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloroform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chloroform. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of fish only is 2000 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2015). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29624 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
79870 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 total fraction and one fish fillet fraction fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue criteria. Zero of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). LOE 125699 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125783. Zero of zero water samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms. Although a total of 12 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35427 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127370 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.014 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46082 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35916 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35188 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125699 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2010-10-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125783 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103404 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos, methyl |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. The sample size for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination is less than 16. None of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the objective as no evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. None of eight total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127865 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chlorpyrifos Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos Methyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.085 ug/L for an invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29631 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70209 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium (total) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 125778 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125658. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC). The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125658 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chromium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chromium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chromium is 111 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125778 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chromium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chromium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chromium is 111 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127116 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33920 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/05 and 10/29/08. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4992 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Chromium (total) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35486 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5243 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium (total) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected. A sample was collected on 10/28/2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
71466 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOEs 125903, 125414, and 125633 were not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125706 . None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125706 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chrysene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chrysene is 1290 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32868 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125903 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chrysene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chrysene is 1290 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125414 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chrysene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chrysene is 1290 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chrysene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chrysene is 1290 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103407 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Cinerin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark an invertebrate (chronic) for each type of Cinerin assessed: Cinerin-1 and Cinerin-2, for the beneficial use assessed: "Warm Freshwater Habitat" Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark an invertebrate (chronic) for each type of Cinerin assessed: Cinerin-1 and Cinerin-2, for the beneficial use assessed: "Warm Freshwater Habitat" This sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128036 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cinerin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Cinerin-1. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Cinerin-1 is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127362 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cinerin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Cinerin-2. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Cinerin-2 is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71036 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 39 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46755 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128265 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125591 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Copper . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Copper from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Copper is 149 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35278 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5283 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125808 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Copper . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Copper from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Copper is 149 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35499 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32854 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5001 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4919 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103557 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Coumaphos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line(s) of evidence is/are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Four samples were collected, and not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Four samples were collected, and not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. The sample size(s) is/are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Coumaphos | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Coumaphos. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Coumaphos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0337 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
76033 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of ten water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127903 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35318 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76640 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eleven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). LOE 125473 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125758. Zero of zero water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. Although a total of 13 samples were collected, they were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34006 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for Cyfluthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125758 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46362 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Seven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127004 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 3 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125473 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35428 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76277 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eleven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). LOE 125868 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125860. One of one water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. Although a total of 12 samples were collected, they were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127978 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda-. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 3 station(s): (Station Codes 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-10-12 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125868 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46324 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Seven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125860 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35443 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34007 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for lambda-cyhalothrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76140 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eleven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). LOE 125469 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125798. One of one water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. Although a total of 12 samples were collected, they were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125469 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35459 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34008 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for cypermethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maund et al. 2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125798 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127038 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 3 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127039 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 3 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46354 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six sample results (including 1 detected but not quantified result) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
103593 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 sediment samples analyzed for DDD exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). Zero of ten total fraction water samples analyzed for DDD exceeded the CTR Criteria. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples analyzed for o,p'-DDD exceed the guideline as no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32390 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected was 1.686 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32889 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125721 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDD from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDD is 28 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128647 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD(4,4') criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT, 719CVSC52) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29632 | ||||
Pollutant: | o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125560 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDD from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDD is 28 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103598 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of one total fraction water sample analyzed for DDE exceeds the water quality objective. One of 10 dissolved fraction water sample analyzed for p,p'-DDE exceeds the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 sediment samples analyzed for DDE exceed the probable effect concentration. One of one total fraction water sample analyzed for DDE exceeds the water quality objective. One of 10 dissolved fraction water sample analyzed for p,p'-DDE exceeds the water quality objective. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32391 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected was 25.98 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127794 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE(4,4') criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT, 719CVSC52) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125887 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDE from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDE is 31.3 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32931 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125491 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDE from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDE is 31.3 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4856 | ||||
Pollutant: | p,p'-DDE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water samples were taken at one location on the river. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 4/10/2003, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
79510 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dacthal |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35344 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128608 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dacthal. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dacthal is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of > 11000 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) and vascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a 'greater-than' value (for example, > 265,000) and may overestimate toxicity. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
76049 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46326 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127990 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Deltamethrin/Tralomethrin. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin/Tralomethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 3 station(s): (Station Codes 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34009 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for deltamethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125717 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35475 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125896 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103615 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Demeton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127506 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Demeton, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to Demeton is 0.1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | IRIS Reference Summary (Various Pollutants) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT, 719CVSC52) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71317 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1, and 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35194 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5521 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35508 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125768 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Diazinon . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Diazinon . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35919 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45903 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5002 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
75354 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127152 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dibenz(a,h)anthracene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.049 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
79311 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127027 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35239 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79357 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35350 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128130 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
79810 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under the sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. The samples sizes for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was less than 16. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33088 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the criteria. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127801 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan criterion (for the total concentrations of alpha-endosulfan [Endosulfan I] and beta-endosulfan [Endosulfan II]) for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5605 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5522 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126172 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126280 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126308 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45907 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126171 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45906 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70757 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 total fraction or 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127283 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35050 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76034 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Nineteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129043 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35069 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35515 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5613 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35070 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129044 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35059 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125676 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Endrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Endrin is 207 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125539 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Endrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Endrin is 207 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5102 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45908 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126491 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126599 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45909 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126598 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126164 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71671 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 total fraction and none of 7 dissolved water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127816 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35082 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76183 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Sample sizes for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective was less than 16. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125474 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35938 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125756 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127746 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.017 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35433 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46347 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
70148 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Ethion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under the sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. Zero of zero water samples exceeded the USEPA national ambient water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life. Five samples were collected and not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127011 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ethion. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for ethion is 0.02 µg/L. (National Aquatic Life Criteria 1972. Page 186 Table III-18) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5524 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103617 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128728 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71296 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Ethylbenzene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 total fraction or 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126868 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ethylbenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35101 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103618 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Fenitrothion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128796 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenitrothion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Fenitrothion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenitrothion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.087 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
77532 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125443 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34010 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for fenpropathrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Ding et al. 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125871 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35957 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35462 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46369 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128749 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.064 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103619 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Fenthion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128983 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenthion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenthion. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenthion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.013 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71467 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. None of 18 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 125719 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125569. None of eight total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of seven dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125719 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127483 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Fluoranthene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Fluoranthene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 370 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125569 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35509 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
79811 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Fluorene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. LOE 125885 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125730 . None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125885 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluorene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fluorene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Fluorene is 536 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125730 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluorene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fluorene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Fluorene is 536 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32983 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
70875 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. The sample size for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126466 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126165 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35095 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128053 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5623 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35158 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127234 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45912 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70876 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5525 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35147 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126886 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35115 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127217 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5632 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126485 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126239 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45914 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45913 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126240 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126626 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although data was collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 5 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70149 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under the sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35167 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126567 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Hexachlorobenzene. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45915 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126444 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Hexachlorobenzene. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5526 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127250 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Hexachlorobenzene. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70173 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobutadiene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 total fraction or 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128244 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobutadiene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Hexachlorobutadiene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35544 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobutadiene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71034 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128253 | ||||
Pollutant: | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Indeno(1, 2, 3-C, D)Pyrene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.049 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4999 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103620 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Jasmolin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128085 | ||||
Pollutant: | Jasmolin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Jasmolin-2. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Jasmolin-2 is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127316 | ||||
Pollutant: | Jasmolin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Jasmolin-1. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Jasmolin-1 is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70877 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125710 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lead . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lead from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lead is 128 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32917 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)), and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127516 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46757 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35568 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125694 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lead . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lead from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lead is 128 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5284 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35867 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70825 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 and 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35518 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6740 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35086 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128704 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, gamma criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35108 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125645 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lindane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35122 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125538 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma-. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lindane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126307 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126453 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45911 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128705 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126452 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45910 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5102 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126306 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103621 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | "This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero total fraction water samples exceeded UC Davis Criteria. Five samples were collected and not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the objective as no evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126966 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Malathion. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35590 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
70051 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy in 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35632 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35674 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26720 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45916 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. The one composite could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35870 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125850 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mercury . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Mercury from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Mercury is 1.06 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125424 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mercury . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Mercury from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Mercury is 1.06 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
79358 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Methidathion |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35358 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128353 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
79359 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria CCC. None of eight water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria CMC. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35549 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127291 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, the maximum (instantaneous) criteria to protect aquatic life from levels of mirex in water is 0.03 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 were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-04-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
76223 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 132678 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Parathion, Methyl . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 132674 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Parathion, Methyl . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35960 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35480 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127960 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Parathion, Methyl. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s): (Station Codes 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
76368 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Mirex |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven fish tissue sample and 13 water samples were collected for Mirex, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35574 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128519 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mirex. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126661 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mirex. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 2 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2012-03-26 and 2012-03-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126358 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed RWB7 TMDL data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mirex. Although data was collected for 4 fish species (1 composite(s) of Common Carp each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 1 fish per composite, 2 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 3 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Tilapia spp. each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 5 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for RWB7 TMDL. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-02-06 and 2016-02-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45917 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76554 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Molinate |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of nine water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 105 ug/. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database aquatic life MATC for Molinate of 0.6 ug/L. Thus none of 16 water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 105 ug/. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128574 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Molinate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 105 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35612 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
103622 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128368 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Naphthalene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Naphthalene is 620 ug/l. (EPA 440/5-80-059) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Naphthalene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29627 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125547 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naphthalene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Naphthalene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Naphthalene is 561 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2012-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125519 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naphthalene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Naphthalene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Naphthalene is 561 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32563 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
71416 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46757 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5104 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32938 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35660 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4996 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127416 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128735 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125811 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Nickel from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Nickel is 48.6 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35893 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35684 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125466 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Nickel from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Nickel is 48.6 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103623 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Nonylphenol |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of tow water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128317 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nonylphenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nonylphenol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to nonylphenol is 6.6 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-04-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103624 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Oxadiazon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Zero of ten water and zero of seven sediment samples exceeded the objectives. Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | Mirex | Oxadiazon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127422 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxadiazon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxadiazon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oxadiazon is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 5.2 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
76642 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. Samples sizes were less than 16. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125619 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total PAHs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PAHs is 22800 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125476 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total PAHs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PAHs is 22800 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35454 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Total PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
103625 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Parathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29961 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128926 | ||||
Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Parathion, Ethyl. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35555 | ||||
Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76643 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the sample(s) exceeded the objective(s). Sample sizes were less than 16 for each matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127395 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT, 719CVSCDR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34011 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one non-detect sample collected for permethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35481 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46453 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Five sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/22/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125612 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125718 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103628 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 17 sediment samples and zero of five water samples exceeded the objectives. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125886 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Phenanthrene is 1170 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125840 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Phenanthrene is 1170 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32806 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following stations: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29626 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103629 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Phorate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceed the objectives. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50. Zero of six total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50. Zero of six total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Each sample size was less than 16. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11, 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127411 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35618 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
103630 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Phosmet |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceed the objectives. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50. Zero of six total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50. Zero of six total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Each sample size was less than 16. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11, 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35643 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127859 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103631 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceed the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of 16 total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 of 98 ug/L and USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 98 ug/L. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127459 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Prometon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Prometon is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 98 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35686 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29638 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103632 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Prometryn |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceeded the objective(s). 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 staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 of 1 ug/L. Zero of nine total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.04 ug/L. Each sample size was less than 16. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11, 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35372 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128223 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Prometryn is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.04 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103633 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Propazine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceeded the objective(s). 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 staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the guideline as there was no evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions. Zero of seven total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 of 25 ug/L. Zero of nine total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 24.8 ug/L. Each sample size was less than 16. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11, 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29639 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | Terbuthylazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Propazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Propazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 24.8 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70925 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the objectives and sample sizes for at least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination was at least 16. Zero of 18 sediment samples exceeded Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects of 1520 ug/kg (Macdonald et al, 2000). Zero of eight total fraction and zero of seven dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems of 11,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128206 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Pyrene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Pyrene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-11 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35438 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125553 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pyrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Pyrene is 1520 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pyrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Pyrene is 1520 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103634 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark an invertebrate (chronic) for each type of Pyrethrin assessed: Pyrethrin-1 and Pyrethrin -2, for each beneficial assessed: "Warm Freshwater Habitat" and "Cold Freshwater Habitat." Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark an invertebrate (chronic) for each type of Pyrethrin assessed: Pyrethrin-1 and Pyrethrin -2, for the beneficial assessed: "Warm Freshwater Habitat" The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128216 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Pyrethrin-1. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pyrethrin-1 is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127451 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Pyrethrin-2. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pyrethrin-2 is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103635 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | "This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of nine water samples and one of four sediment samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of nine water samples and one of four sediment samples exceeded the objectives. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127368 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Pyrethroids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, deltamethrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000, UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides (DFG Administrative Report 00-6, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT, 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125716 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125670 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70402 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of nine water samples and one of four sediment samples exceeded the objectives. Zero of 11 water samples exceeded the objective. Zero of five sediment samples exceeded the objective. Zero of one total fraction tissue samples exceeded the objective. Zero of 12 fish fillet fraction tissue samples exceeded the objective. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30275 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5530 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in 1987. One tilapia fish composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5529 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Chemical monitoring of sediments | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Downloadable data of chemical analysis results from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) webpage, containing program data for the years 1978-2000. Data pertaining specifically to Region 7 was downloaded from the SWRCB website in August 2007 (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Redwood Creek Rotary Screw Trap Downstream Migration Study Redwood Valley, Humboldt County, California April 4 - August 5, 2000. Draft Report | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Samples were not collected every sampling round. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45920 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127997 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4956 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70023 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Silver |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 and LOE No. 46757, are assessed using different water quality objectives, and LOE No. 46757 is not included in the final use rating. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the CTR CMC criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128717 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46757 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32944 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79413 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50. None of nine water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark for a nonvascular plant (acute). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.24 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35604 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
103636 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Terbufos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives: Zero of five dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the objective(s). Zero of zero total fraction water samples exceeded the objective(s). Although a total of four total fraction water samples were collected, these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29635 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127020 | ||||
Pollutant: | Terbufos | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Terbufos. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Terbufos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.03 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s) (Station Code(s) 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103637 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Terbuthylazine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of nine total fraction water samples exceed the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. Zero of eight samples exceed the objective for the dissolved fraction as no evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29639 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | Terbuthylazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127216 | ||||
Pollutant: | Terbuthylazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Terbuthylazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Terbuthylazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1800 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70365 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven dissolved fraction and none of six total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35673 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128821 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Tetrachloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76051 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC. Zero of nine total fraction water samples exceeded the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. The sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127249 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35380 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78744 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Toluene |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35391 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toluene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128444 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toluene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Toluene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70147 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Trichloroethylene/TCE |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven dissolved fraction and none of 6 total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Trichloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35400 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4998 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70982 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy.
Under sections 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE 125594 was not used in the final use rating because sampling dates overlap with LOE 125462. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 27 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentrations (CCC). Zero of 19 sediment samples exceeded the probable effect concentration (PEC). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46757 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128982 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35411 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5285 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4967 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35896 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125462 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Zinc . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Zinc from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Zinc is 459 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 2 (Station Codes: 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125594 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Zinc . | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Zinc from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Zinc is 459 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
80016 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 total fraction and none of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35025 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127523 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127525 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35016 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
70181 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 total fraction and none of 7 dissolved water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35134 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127134 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, alpha-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70182 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 total fraction and none of 7 dissolved water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128424 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, beta-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35155 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
70331 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives. At least one matrix/fraction/beneficial use/objective combination sample size was sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. None of 7 dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 17 total fraction water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35033 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128292 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128290 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35042 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
78171 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | o-Dichlorobenzene |
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 | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34744 | ||||
Pollutant: | o-Dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 127880 | ||||
Pollutant: | o-Dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-22 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
69951 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Nineteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 32361 overlaps with LOE 32362 and was not used in the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 75 "dissolved" fraction and zero of 41 "none" fraction water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128536 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-22 and 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5333 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-three water quality measurements were taken at 1 location along the channel, generally collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Measurements were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty-three measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Nineteen measurements were collected from 1963-1969, no measurements were collected from 1970-1979, no measurements were collected from 1980-1989, one measurement was collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32362 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 5 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at station 719CVSCOT - Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected during May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128586 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126760 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 66 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s) (TEPA29-SW-1D, TEPA29-SW-1E, TEPA29-SW-1F, TEPA29-SW-3) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-13 and 2012-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126704 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 66 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s) (TEPA29-SW-1D, TEPA29-SW-1E, TEPA29-SW-1F, TEPA29-SW-3) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-13 and 2012-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126785 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 66 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s) (TEPA29-SW-1D, TEPA29-SW-1E, TEPA29-SW-1F, TEPA29-SW-3) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-13 and 2012-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126736 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 66 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s) (TEPA29-SW-1D, TEPA29-SW-1E, TEPA29-SW-1F, TEPA29-SW-3) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-13 and 2012-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5116 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water quality measurements were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Measurements were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in May and October of 2002.Measurements were collected in May and Octboer 2002 at the Avenue 52 location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 126737 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 66 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s) (TEPA29-SW-1D, TEPA29-SW-1E, TEPA29-SW-1F, TEPA29-SW-3) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-13 and 2012-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128540 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-22 and 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128584 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128535 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-22 and 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128585 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128093 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128537 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-22 and 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32361 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at station 719CVSC52 - Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected during October 2005, and May 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128588 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128529 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0. Discharges shall not cause any changes in pH detrimental to beneficial water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-22 and 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103616 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2031 |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of four total sample water samples exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Four of four total sample water samples exceed the objective. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. This pollutant is a possible cause or contributor to toxicity. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 125409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 8 samples collected by SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Survival, Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Young/female | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128889 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 4 of the 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Disulfoton. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Disulfoton is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.01 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 2 station(s): (Station Codes 719CVSC52, 719CVSCOT). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-10-07 to 2011-10-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76511 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | 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 | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2031 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of 13 total fraction and two of seven dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the water quality objective(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 13 total fraction and two of seven dissolved fraction water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32310 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the two samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.' | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 719CVSC52 - Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during October 2005 and May 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32311 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the five samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.' | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 719CVSCOT - Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during May 2006, May 2007, October 2007, April 2008, and October 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP RWB7 Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin, WARM Water Habitat Objective, Chapter III, states the following: The dissolved oxygen concentration for cold water habitats shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 monitoring site(s) (719CVSC52, 719CVSCDR, 719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2013-10-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 128532 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin, WARM Water Habitat Objective, Chapter III, states the following: The dissolved oxygen concentration for cold water habitats shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Includes amendments effective on or before January 8, 2019) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (719CVSCOT) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-22 and 2014-10-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
77923 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29624 was received a use rating of insufficient becasue no evaluation guideline were available for all these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for chloroform is available for current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of three samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29624 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35337 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloroform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76285 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | 1,3-Dichloropropene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29643 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | 1,3-Dichloropropene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76435 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29622 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29957 | ||||
Pollutant: | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. No sample was collected from the outlet location in October of 2002. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76482 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29960 and 29627 were received the use rating of insufficient during last accessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Naphthalen in sediment is avaialble, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29960 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32563 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29627 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77277 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29959 and 29626 were received the use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guidelines were available these pollutants. However, sediment quality guideline for Phenanthrene is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1. 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29626 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32806 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following stations: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29959 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76480 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29623 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77919 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29644 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
68073 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29988 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76739 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29987 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76655 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Manganese | Silver |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29985 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Manganese | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76905 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 59637 was received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 35372 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76693 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29979 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76866 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29638 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven watervsamples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29638 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35686 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76374 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29630 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle becasue no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is avaialbe, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven water samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of this reason, staff cannot make a final decision for this pollutant. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29630 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35289 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
77067 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29968 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29635 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76147 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29981 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77370 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | Mirex | Oxadiazon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76736 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Carbon (organic) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29992 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon (organic) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77280 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29628 and 29961 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for those pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for malathion and parathion are avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero-acceptable sample, staff cannot make a final decison if water quality objectives are met. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 35555 | ||||
Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29961 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35590 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76337 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29631 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76428 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29976 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dibenzothiophene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29642 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77244 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobenzophenone |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Dichlorobenzophenone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobenzophenone | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70719 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobromomethane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71514 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 5000 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76148 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29983 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
68780 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29984 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76615 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29986 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71242 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 6732 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA. | ||||
DECISION ID |
76280 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Hydroxide | Pheophytin a |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29645 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hydroxide | Pheophytin a | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two water quality sample were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Two water samples were collected. The water sample were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site, and where Avenue 52 crosses over the stormwater channel. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71515 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl bromide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 5000 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76284 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion were available, and these pollutants were received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle. However, an evalution guideline for Phorate and Phosmet is avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phorate LC50, and none of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phosmet LC50. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29966 | ||||
Pollutant: | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Perylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35643 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Tedion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35618 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
77103 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Propazine | Terbuthylazine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29639 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for propazine and terbuthylazine. However, an evalution guideline for propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 35562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29639 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | Terbuthylazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76150 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Salinity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Salinity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Three water samples were collected. The water sample were collected and analyzed from April 2003 through May 2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76427 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Streptococcus, fecal |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29641 | ||||
Pollutant: | Streptococcus, fecal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street, and where Avenue 52 crosses over the stormchannel. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Samples were collected from the Avenue 52 crossing in May and October of 2002 only. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76522 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29640 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29970 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71567 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | Vinyl chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 5000 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76874 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29629 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29962 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
79871 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 29958 | ||||
Pollutant: | cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29625 | ||||
Pollutant: | cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70774 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | m-Dichlorobenzene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70216 |
Region 7 |
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel |
||
Pollutant: | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. herefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
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: | 4997 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||