Final California 2020 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114120, Aldicarb	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

139529

Pollutant:

Aldicarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127795	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Ammonia
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127795, Ammonia	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

184919

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127795, Ammonia	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

184926

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	115551	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Ammonia (Unionized)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 115551, Ammonia (Unionized)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

185469

Pollutant:

Ammonia (Unionized)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. Although a total of 11 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in inland surface waters, enclosed bays and estuaries and coastal lagoons (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 115551, Ammonia (Unionized)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

185520

Pollutant:

Ammonia (Unionized)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114077	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 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. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 20 water samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use, zero of 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the COLD/WARM beneficial use, and zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment. 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 20 water samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use, zero of 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the COLD/WARM beneficial use, zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment, and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140356

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

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 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140179

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic is 0.01 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140153

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135453

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic .

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140128

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135343

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140417

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114077, Arsenic	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140154

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114078	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Atrazine
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114078, Atrazine	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140143

Pollutant:

Atrazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114078, Atrazine	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140142

Pollutant:

Atrazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

RWB9 Status Sampling 2007 and 2008


DECISION ID	125880	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Benthic Community Effects
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. Two line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. One of six benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. These data indicate that the waterbody is likely unimpaired for Benthic Community Effects and therefore no other pollutant LOEs need be associated with this decision at this time. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of six benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. Therefore, this water body is not exceeding the water quality threshold for the protection of the COLD beneficial use. The available information indicates that the waterbody/pollutant combination should not be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

79429

Pollutant:

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The CSCI score for this site is above the 0.79 threshold, and is therefore not exceeding the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use.

Data Reference:

Region 9 CSCI Scores & Water Body Information

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 or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. Region 9 Basin Plan.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings

Evaluation Guideline:

The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rhen, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following station: 902SMADO2 (Adobe Creek 2).

Temporal Representation:

Survey done June 5, 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data collected following SWAMP QA protocols for the RWB9 Status Sampling 2007 and 2008 water quality monitoring project.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

RWB9 Status Sampling 2007 and 2008

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135564

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

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:

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(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146523

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146498

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146184

Pollutant:

Pyrethroids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 10 of the 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 19 samples were collected, 8 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Evaluation Guideline:

The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146003

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 7 of 17 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosphorus as P.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, by themselves or in combination with other nutrients, shall be maintained at levels below those which stimulate algae and emergent plant growth. A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total P. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143120

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lambda-cyhalothrin.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin

Evaluation Guideline:

The chronic concentration goal for Lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2017-01-19

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142906

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 11 samples were collected, 11 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142558

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Esfenvalerate.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The chronic concentration goal for Esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-07 and 2016-01-06

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142451

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 15 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140523

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 15 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The chronic concentration goal for Bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140477

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-04 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137320

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136418

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

California Stream Condition Index Scores for the 2020 Integrated Report

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 125880, Benthic Community Effects	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

215644

Pollutant:

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed data for 902ADB848 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 5 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.722857933 to 0.8626 .

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station 902ADB848

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 5/29/2013 to 5/16/2018.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected under a permit required receiving waters monitoring and reporting program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Southern California Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Bioassessment, Version 1.0, and Freshwater Bioassessment from Weston Solutions.


DECISION ID	114079	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the COLD/WARM beneficial use, and zero of 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use. 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 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 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114079, Cadmium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135826

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Cadmium in 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114079, Cadmium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140516

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114079, Cadmium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140654

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114079, Cadmium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135844

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Cadmium in 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114079, Cadmium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140598

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114079, Cadmium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140663

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114080	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Carbofuran
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114080, Carbofuran	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141041

Pollutant:

Carbofuran

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbofuran.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Carbofuran is .0.018 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114081	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114081, Chlordane	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136021

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114081, Chlordane	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135796

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114082	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114082, Chlorpyrifos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

219690

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 21 samples were collected, 21 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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 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).

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (4 day average)(Siepmann and Finlayson 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114082, Chlorpyrifos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

219731

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 21 samples were collected, 21 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (4 day average)(Siepmann and Finlayson 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114082, Chlorpyrifos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141116

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 14 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories

Evaluation Guideline:

The 2018 USEPA drinking water health advisory for chlorpyrifos is 2 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114126	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Chromium
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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM/COLD beneficial use, and zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use. 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 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 the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM/COLD beneficial use, and zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114126, Chromium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141187

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114126, Chromium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141186

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114126, Chromium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136131

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Chromium in 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114126, Chromium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136313

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Chromium in 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114126, Chromium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141420

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for total chromium is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114126, Chromium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141397

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for total chromium is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114083	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, at least one line of evidence is necessary. 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. Zero of 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold in water for the MUN beneficial use, zero of 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold in water for the WARM/COLD beneficial use, and zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment. 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 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold in water for the MUN beneficial use, zero of 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold in water for the WARM/COLD beneficial use, and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114083, Copper	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141759

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114083, Copper	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141645

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary MCL for copper is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114083, Copper	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136524

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper in 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114083, Copper	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141901

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary MCL for copper is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114083, Copper	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136627

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper in 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114083, Copper	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141783

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114123	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114123, Cyfluthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136639

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114123, Cyfluthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142015

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cyfluthrin.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The chronic concentration goal for Cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-01-06 and 2016-01-06

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114123, Cyfluthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136532

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114123, Cyfluthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141986

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 17 samples were collected, 17 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114123, Cyfluthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141910

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-01-06 and 2016-01-06

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114123, Cyfluthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141941

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 17 samples were collected, 17 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114115	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114115, Cypermethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142107

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The chronic concentration goal for Cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-05-31 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114115, Cypermethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141945

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 18 samples were collected, 18 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114115, Cypermethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142026

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 18 samples were collected, 18 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114115, Cypermethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136781

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114115, Cypermethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136938

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114115, Cypermethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

141842

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-05-31 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127274	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127274, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136942

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127274, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136925

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127298	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127298, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136700

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127298, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136697

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127374	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127374, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136789

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127374, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136752

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114124	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Deltamethrin
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114124, Deltamethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142179

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 19 samples were collected, 19 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114124, Deltamethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136824

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114124, Deltamethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136858

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114124, Deltamethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142109

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 19 samples were collected, 19 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114128	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114128, Demeton	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142079

Pollutant:

Demeton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recomm. Water Quality criteria, 4-day avg. is 0.1 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114128, Demeton	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142099

Pollutant:

Demeton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recomm. Water Quality criteria, 4-day avg. is 0.1 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114084	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114084, Diazinon	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142118

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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 for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114084, Diazinon	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142086

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 14 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA drinking water health advisory for diazinon is 1.4 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114084, Diazinon	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142048

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114085	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Dichlorvos
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114085, Dichlorvos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142258

Pollutant:

Dichlorvos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114085, Dichlorvos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142441

Pollutant:

Dichlorvos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114086	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114086, Dieldrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137091

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114086, Dieldrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137072

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114117	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Dimethoate
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114117, Dimethoate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142532

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114117, Dimethoate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142475

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114117, Dimethoate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142446

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

CDPH Archived Advisory Levels for Drinking Water. Archived Advisory Levels are currently considered Notification Levels.

Evaluation Guideline:

The California Department of Health Services notification level for dimethoate is 1 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114087	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Disulfoton
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114087, Disulfoton	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142521

Pollutant:

Disulfoton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA drinking water health advisory for disulfoton is 0.7 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114088	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114088, Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142641

Pollutant:

Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Fonofos is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.45 ug/L. The MATC is calculated as the geometric mean of the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) of 0.64 ug/L and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 0.31 ug/L, as determined in a 21 day toxicity study with the water flea, Daphnia magna. Threshold values (LOEC and NOEC) are from USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114088, Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142660

Pollutant:

Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114089	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114089, Endrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137402

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114089, Endrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137043

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114118	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114118, Ethoprop	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142396

Pollutant:

Ethoprop

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114118, Ethoprop	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142633

Pollutant:

Ethoprop

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114116	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Ethyl p-nitrophenyl (EPN)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114116, Ethyl p-nitrophenyl (EPN)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142359

Pollutant:

Ethyl p-nitrophenyl (EPN)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for EPN is the LC50 of 6.8 ug/L for Gammarus fasciatus (Scud) (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114116, Ethyl p-nitrophenyl (EPN)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142373

Pollutant:

Ethyl p-nitrophenyl (EPN)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for EPN is the LC50 of 6.8 ug/L for Gammarus fasciatus (Scud) (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114127	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Fenpropathrin
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114127, Fenpropathrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137468

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114127, Fenpropathrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142741

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114127, Fenpropathrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142616

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114127, Fenpropathrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137343

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114091	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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, and under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in 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. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM/COLD beneficial use. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds the water quality threshold for sediment; this sample size is not sufficient to determine beneficial use support with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 20 samples exceeded the threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114091, Lead	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142881

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114091, Lead	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137759

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead in 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114091, Lead	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142921

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114091, Lead	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142879

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Maximum Contaminant Level for lead is .015 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114091, Lead	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137819

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead in 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114091, Lead	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143247

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Maximum Contaminant Level for lead is .015 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114092	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114092, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137804

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114092, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137637

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114093	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114093, Malathion	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143218

Pollutant:

Malathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA drinking water health advisory for malathion is 500 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114093, Malathion	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

220972

Pollutant:

Malathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses. Pesticides shall not be present at levels which will bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms to levels which are harmful to human health, wildlife or aquatic organisms (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for malathion is 0.1 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114113	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Methiocarb
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114113, Methiocarb	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143162

Pollutant:

Methiocarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Methiocarb. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 7 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114113, Methiocarb	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143161

Pollutant:

Methiocarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Methiocarb. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 7 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114121	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Naled
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114121, Naled	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143404

Pollutant:

Naled

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naled. 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 water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Naled is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.045 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114121, Naled	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143150

Pollutant:

Naled

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naled. 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 water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Naled is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.045 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114095	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 water samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM/COLD beneficial use, zero of 20 water samples exceed the water quality threshold for MUN, and zero of the one sediment sample exceed the water quality threshold. 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 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 the 20 water samples and zero of the one sediment sample exceed the water quality threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114095, Nickel	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143764

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114095, Nickel	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143785

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114095, Nickel	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138276

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel in 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114095, Nickel	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143506

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114095, Nickel	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138235

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel in 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114095, Nickel	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143500

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127804	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, Nitrite
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. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold. 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 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 the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127804, Nitrogen, Nitrite	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143901

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, Nitrite

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrite (as N) is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114096	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Oxamyl (Vydate)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114096, Oxamyl (Vydate)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144574

Pollutant:

Oxamyl (Vydate)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Oxamyl is 50 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114097	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114097, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144504

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB9 Monitoring data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved oxygen levels shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l in inland surface waters with the COLD beneficial use designated (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114097, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144503

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved oxygen levels shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l in inland surface waters with the COLD beneficial use designated (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114097, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144440

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved oxygen levels shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l in inland surface waters with the WARM beneficial use designated (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114097, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144462

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved oxygen levels shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l in inland surface waters with the WARM beneficial use designated (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	114076	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Oxytetracycline
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114076, Oxytetracycline	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145022

Pollutant:

Oxytetracycline

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB9 Monitoring data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxytetracycline.

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Oxytetracycline is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 47450 ug/L for a fish (acute) for Oxytetracycline (hydrochloride salt).

Guideline Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114076, Oxytetracycline	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145021

Pollutant:

Oxytetracycline

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Oxytetracycline is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 47450 ug/L for a fish (acute) for Oxytetracycline (hydrochloride salt).

Guideline Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	114098	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114098, Parathion	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144918

Pollutant:

Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA recommended freshwater aquatic life ambient water quality chronic criteria for Parathion is 0.013 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114098, Parathion	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144787

Pollutant:

Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA recommended freshwater aquatic life ambient water quality chronic criteria for Parathion is 0.013 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	130301	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Permethrin
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130301, Permethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144964

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The chronic concentration goal for Permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used.

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-05-31 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130301, Permethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138634

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130301, Permethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138538

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130301, Permethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144813

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 18 samples were collected, 18 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130301, Permethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145028

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 18 samples were collected, 18 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130301, Permethrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144963

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-05-31 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114119	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114119, Phorate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145599

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114119, Phorate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145619

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114119, Phorate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145598

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

National Academy of Sciences - Volume I Drinking Water and Health

Evaluation Guideline:

The national academy of sciences no-adverse effect level in drinking water for phorate is 0.7 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114122	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114122, Phosmet	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145603

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

IRIS Reference Summary (Various Pollutants)

Evaluation Guideline:

Based on USEPA IRIS reference dose (RfD) as a drinking water level, the drinking water health advisory level for phosmet is 140 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114122, Phosmet	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145583

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114122, Phosmet	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145582

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114101	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. One of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM and COLD freshwater habitat beneficial uses. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 20 samples exceed the threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114101, Selenium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146498

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114101, Selenium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146253

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California MCL for Selenium is .05 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114101, Selenium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146124

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114101, Selenium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146523

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114101, Selenium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146561

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114101, Selenium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146088

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California MCL for Selenium is .05 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114102	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 21 samples exceed the water quality threshold. 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 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 21 samples exceeded the threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114102, Silver	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146738

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Silver.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Table 64449-A of section 64449 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels, Consumer Acceptance Limits) which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Secondary MCL for silver is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-29 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114102, Silver	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146739

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Silver.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114102, Silver	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146719

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114102, Silver	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146833

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Table 64449-A of section 64449 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels, Consumer Acceptance Limits) which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Secondary MCL for silver is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114103	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Simazine
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114103, Simazine	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146821

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114103, Simazine	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146838

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127660	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Specific Conductivity
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127660, Specific Conductivity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146911

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Table 64449-A of section 64449 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels, Consumer Acceptance Limits) which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Secondary MCL for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127660, Specific Conductivity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146860

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Table 64449-A of section 64449 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels, Consumer Acceptance Limits) which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Secondary MCL for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114104	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Sulfates
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114104, Sulfates	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146734

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Sulfate water quality threshold in this HSA is 250 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114111	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Surfactants (MBAS)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114111, Surfactants (MBAS)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143341

Pollutant:

Surfactants (MBAS)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Secondary California Maximum Contaminant Level for MBAS is 0.5 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114105	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114105, Terbufos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147177

Pollutant:

Terbufos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Terbufos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.03 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114105, Terbufos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147178

Pollutant:

Terbufos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Terbufos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.03 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2016-12-16 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114105, Terbufos	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147202

Pollutant:

Terbufos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA drinking water health advisory for terbufos is 0.4 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-12-16 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114106	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Thallium
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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold. 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 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 20 samples exceeded the threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114106, Thallium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147248

Pollutant:

Thallium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The thallium criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 1.7 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114106, Thallium	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147251

Pollutant:

Thallium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The thallium criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 1.7 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127431	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127431, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

139048

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127431, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

139069

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:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114107	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Total Dissolved Solids
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147342

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Dissolved Solids.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2014-05-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147207

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Dissolved Solids.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-09-18 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147367

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2014-05-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147320

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2014-05-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147345

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2014-05-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147280

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-09-18 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147344

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-09-18 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114107, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147343

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Total Dissolved Solids water quality threshold in this HSA is 500 mg/L, and this concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-09-18 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114108	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Toxicity
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:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114108, Toxicity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

134688

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of the 16 samples collected by San Diego Region for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) 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, Hyalella azteca, for Survival, Pimephales promelas, for Survival, Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Reproduction, Pimephales promelas, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Selenastrum capricornutum, for Total Cell Count, Pimephales promelas, for Biomass (wt/orig indiv)

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 902ADB848 )

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-10 and 2018-05-16.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114108, Toxicity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

134700

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 902ADB848 )

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-10 and 2018-05-16.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114110	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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, and under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM/COLD beneficial use. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds the water quality threshold for sediment; this sample size is not sufficient to determine beneficial use support with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 20 samples exceed the threshold, 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114110, Zinc	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

148110

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Secondary MCL for zinc is 5.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114110, Zinc	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

139481

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc in 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114110, Zinc	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

148045

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114110, Zinc	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

148009

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114110, Zinc	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

148066

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which is incorporated by reference into this plan. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). The California Secondary MCL for zinc is 5.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114110, Zinc	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

139413

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc in 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114099	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available.

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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114099, pH	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145297

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114099, pH	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145124

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114099, pH	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145169

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902SMADO2)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-07 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008, Nagoda and Busse, 2013. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Screening of Cyanotoxins in Lakes/Reservoirs and Coastal Wetlands in the San Diego Region, SWAMP QAPrP 2017

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114099, pH	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145279

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114114	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
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:	2033
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, at least one 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 in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of three samples exceed the water quality threshold in water. Zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment, but this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support with the statistical power and confidence of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Three of three samples exceed the water quality threshold in water, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114114, Bifenthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136006

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114114, Bifenthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140477

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-04 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114114, Bifenthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140675

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 15 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114114, Bifenthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140523

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 15 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114114, Bifenthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

140562

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-04 and 2017-05-31

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114114, Bifenthrin	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

135564

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114125	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
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:	2033
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six of six samples exceed the water quality threshold in water. Zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment, but this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support with the statistical power and confidence of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Six of six samples exceed the water quality threshold in water, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114125, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143087

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2017-01-19

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114125, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142906

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 11 samples were collected, 11 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114125, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136659

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114125, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143120

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2017-01-19

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114125, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142870

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 11 samples were collected, 11 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114125, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

136418

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114129	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
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:	2033
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the two samples exceed the water quality threshold in water. [Zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment, but this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support with the statistical power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 sample is needed.] 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. Two of two samples exceed the water quality threshold in water, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114129, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137355

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114129, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142451

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 15 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114129, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142558

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-07 and 2016-01-06

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114129, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

137320

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114129, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142559

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-07 and 2016-01-06

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114129, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142450

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 15 samples were collected, 15 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127876	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
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)(2018)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2033
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 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the 12 samples exceed the STV threshold for E. coli. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Seven of 12 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the protection of REC-1, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the “ISWEBE Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use, which were adopted on August 7, 2018. Because the salinity level of this waterbody is equal to or less than 1 part per thousand 95 percent or more of the time, the E. coli bacteria objective applies Therefore, this waterbody is being considered for placement on or removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 or 4.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the E. coli objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. For E. coli data, Listing Policy sections 3.3 and 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in sections 3.2 and 4.2, as applicable. To use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency, the data must be collected from coastal beaches or inland surface waters from April 1 through October 31 only, and where collected from inland waters from April 1 through October 31 only, bacterial measurements must be indicative of human fecal matter, and there is substantial human contact in the waterbody. No fecal coliform data are used in this assessment because the fecal coliform water quality objective was superseded and is no longer used as the basis of any 303(d) List decision for water contact recreation.

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:	The State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the “ISWEBE Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use, which were adopted on August 7, 2018. Because the salinity level of this waterbody is equal to or less than 1 part per thousand 95 percent or more of the time, the E. coli bacteria objective applies Therefore, this waterbody is being considered for placement on or removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 or 4.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the E. coli objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. For E. coli data, Listing Policy sections 3.3 and 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in sections 3.2 and 4.2, as applicable. To use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency, the data must be collected from coastal beaches or inland surface waters from April 1 through October 31 only, and where collected from inland waters from April 1 through October 31 only, bacterial measurements must be indicative of human fecal matter, and there is substantial human contact in the waterbody. No fecal coliform data are used in this assessment because the fecal coliform water quality objective was superseded and is no longer used as the basis of any 303(d) List decision for water contact recreation.

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127876, Indicator Bacteria	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

220634

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 7 of the 12 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all non-saline waters, is a Statistical Threshold Value (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL. The applicable STV shall not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month, calculated in a static manner (ISWEBE 2018).

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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 902ADB848

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2012-10-04 and 2018-03-22 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127876, Indicator Bacteria	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

72775

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the two samples exceeded the total coliform objective.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Basin Plan for the San Diego Basin.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

The total coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 10000/100 ml. Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches (CDPH).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Adobe Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on Oct 22, 2008 and May 21, 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

No QAPP was submitted. Sampling was done by municipalities in Riverside County pursuant to the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater Permit.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127876, Indicator Bacteria	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

72774

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the two samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Fecal Coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100 ml. Water Quality Control Plan for The San Diego Basin.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Adobe Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on Oct 22, 2008 and May 21, 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

No QAPP was submitted. Sampling was done by municipalities in Riverside County pursuant to the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater Permit.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127876, Indicator Bacteria	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

72773

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the two samples exceeded the E. Coli objective.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 235/100 ml. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Adobe Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on Oct 22, 2008 and May 21, 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

No QAPP was submitted. Sampling was done by municipalities in Riverside County pursuant to the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater Permit.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	114090	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Iron
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:	2033
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eleven of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the MUN beneficial use. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the WARM/COLD beneficial use. 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. Eleven of 20 samples exceed the threshold for the MUN beneficial use, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114090, Iron	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142790

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Secondary California Maximum Contaminant Level for Iron is 0.3 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114090, Iron	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142590

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Iron.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-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 San Diego Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect aquatic organisms from chronic exposures (expressed as 4-day average concentration) in freshwater. The evaluation guideline for iron is 1,000 ug/L to protect warm freshwater habitat.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114090, Iron	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142627

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114090, Iron	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142572

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114090, Iron	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142821

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Iron.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Secondary California Maximum Contaminant Level for Iron is 0.3 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114090, Iron	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

142683

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114094	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Manganese
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:	2033
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. Three of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold. 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. Three of the 20 samples exceed the water quality threshold, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114094, Manganese	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143262

Pollutant:

Manganese

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Secondary California Maximum Contaminant Level for Manganese is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114094, Manganese	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143317

Pollutant:

Manganese

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Secondary California Maximum Contaminant Level for Manganese is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	128165	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Mercury
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:	2033
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. Two of the two samples exceed the threshold. 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. Two of two samples exceed the threshold and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 128165, Mercury	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138132

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury in 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 128165, Mercury	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143435

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mercury. Although a total of 20 samples were collected, 20 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The mercury criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms for mercury is 0.050 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 128165, Mercury	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138111

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury in 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 128165, Mercury	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143123

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. Although a total of 20 samples were collected, 18 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The mercury criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms for mercury is 0.050 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	127261	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Nitrogen
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:	2033
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. Five of the 19 samples exceed the water quality threshold. 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. Five of the 19 samples exceed the water quality threshold, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127261, Nitrogen	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

144207

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed San Diego Region data for Adobe Creek (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 19 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrogen, Total.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 127261, Nitrogen	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

143865

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114100	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Phosphorus
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:	2033
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. Seven of the 17 samples exceed the water quality threshold for the COLD beneficial use. 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. Seven of 17 samples exceed the threshold, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114100, Phosphorus	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

145804

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114100, Phosphorus	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146003

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114112	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Pyrethroids
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:	2033
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of 11 samples exceed the water quality threshold in water. Zero of one sample exceeds the water quality threshold in sediment, but this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support with the statistical power and confidence of the Listing Policy. 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. Ten of 11 samples exceed the water quality threshold, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114112, Pyrethroids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146168

Pollutant:

Pyrethroids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114112, Pyrethroids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

138972

Pollutant:

Pyrethroids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit. Individual pyrethroid concentrations in sediment were normalized to organic carbon content, divided by the respective LC50 and then summed. A sum over over one toxic unit is an exceedance of the evaluation guideline (Amweg et al. 2006).

Guideline Reference:

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:

Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706

Guideline Reference:

Compilation of freshwater OC-normalized sediment toxicity data for pyrethroids

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114112, Pyrethroids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

146184

Pollutant:

Pyrethroids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-10-04 to 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114112, Pyrethroids	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

139219

Pollutant:

Pyrethroids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion 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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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:

Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706

Guideline Reference:

Compilation of freshwater OC-normalized sediment toxicity data for pyrethroids

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 902ADB848.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-05-29 to 2013-05-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.


DECISION ID	114109	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

Pollutant:	Turbidity
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:	2033
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eleven of the 20 samples exceed the threshold for MUN beneficial use. 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. Eleven of 20 samples exceed the threshold and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114109, Turbidity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147569

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Secondary California Maximum Contaminant Level for Turbidity is 5 NTU (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114109, Turbidity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147766

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Turbidity water quality threshold in this HSA is 20 NTU, and this level is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 9.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 114109, Turbidity	Region 9
Adobe Creek (Riverside County)

LOE ID:

147480

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Turbidity water quality threshold in this HSA is 20 NTU, and this level is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period (Basin Plan, Table 3-2).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (902ADB848)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-10-04 and 2018-05-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Riverside County. 2018. Volume II: Quality Assurance Project Plan.

QAPP Information Reference(s):