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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Delta Waterways (western portion)
Water Body ID:	CAE5100000020021115122549
Water Body Type:	Estuary


DECISION ID	6272	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Agriculture \| Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
TMDL Name:	Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Project
TMDL Project Code:	185
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	10/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 8 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion. A minimum sample size of 28 is required to delist according to Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	NA

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6272, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

22703

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

8 water samples were collected from San Joaquin River in March and April 2003, representing 8 4-day average concentrations and 8 1-hour average concentrations.1 of 8 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.1 of 8 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.025 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports

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 (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).

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

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from San Joaquin River at highway 4 and Antioch.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected weekly in March and April 2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Calanchini, H. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. Final. SWAMP Project ID 02TM5001 (Revision 0.0). John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA. January 26, 2006

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6272, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

567

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	6409	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Agriculture \| Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
TMDL Name:	Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Project
TMDL Project Code:	185
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	10/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	There is sufficient justification to place this pollutant the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2006 and approved by USEPA on 10 October 2007.

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 Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6409, Diazinon	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

568

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	7369	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Resource Extraction
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2009
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 ands 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7369, Mercury	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4214

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	7412	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7412, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4211

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	7414	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Electrical Conductivity
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7414, Electrical Conductivity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4212

Pollutant:

Electrical Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	7458	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Group A Pesticides
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7458, Group A Pesticides	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4213

Pollutant:

Group A Pesticides

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	6680	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Invasive Species
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There have been numerous studies since the late 1960's showing sharp declines in phytoplankton biomass and in native species, such as the delta smelt, which has declined ten-fold over the last 20 years. Non-native species are believed to be responsible for this alteration in the Delta food web and extirpating native species. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. There are numerous studies since the late 1960's. 2. Baseline data is from data acquired from these earlier studies. 3. Trends were determined using statistical analyses on graphs and tables. 4. Summer chlorophyll-a decreased markedly after invasion of the non-native Asian clam. Phytoplankton is a significant source during the spring and summer for many species in the Delta. 5. Phytoplankton biomass has declined over the past few decades, affecting food biomass availability for higher tropic levels. Some non-native species compete with zooplankton for food, or alter species composition of the food web. In areas where non-natives are abundant, native fishes are rare or absent. 6. It cannot be determined if the trend in water quality is expected to meet water standards by the next listing cycle. 7. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6680, Invasive Species	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

565

Pollutant:

Invasive Species

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Not Specified

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The species assessed in support of this listing are: fathead minnow, bigscale logperch, catfish, carp, and brook trout. American shad were planted in the Sacramento River in 1871, and by 1879 a commercial fishery had developed. The next successful introductions, in 1872, were carp and brook trout. In 1874, tank cars brought in four species of catfish and two species of black bass. The striped bass became one of the most successful introductions. It became one of the most abundant fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta following the planting of a total of 432 fish in 1879 and 1882. The bigscale logperch was introduced into the Central Valley when ponds overflowed during a wet year at Beale Air Force Base. In the Central Valley, the few streams that are now dominated by fathead minnows were probably originally dominated by California roach (Moyle, P.B. 1976).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board. Taken from Region 5 Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta extends from Chipps Island to include leveed and flooded islands, river channels, sloughs, and tidal marshes.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification.

QAPP Information:

Peer Reviewed Journal Article and Reports.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6680, Invasive Species	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

566

Pollutant:

Invasive Species

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Asian clam was the species assessed in support of this listing. Thousands of chlorophyll-a measurements have been made in the Delta since the late 1960's and 55-93% of these measurements, depending on the year, are below 10 ug/L. Growth rates of some primary consumers are closely tied to phytoplankton availability below about 10ug/L. There is statistically significant downward trend of phytoplankton from 1975-1995 (Jassby et al., 2003). In 1986 the non-native Asian clam invaded Suisun Bay. The Asian clam is a consumer of phytoplankton, changing phytoplankton dynamics in Suisun Bay and the western Delta. Summer chlorophyll decreased markedly after the Asian clam invaded and phytoplankton biomass has declined over the past few decades, affecting food biomass availability for higher tropic levels of the Delta. Some non-native species compete with zooplankton for food, or alter species composition of the food web, affecting native species survival. Recent studies in the central Delta show that introduced fishes dominate (USFWS, 2004. Five-Year Review of Recovery Plan for Delta Smelt. Federal Register 68(148):45270-45271). In areas where non-natives are abundant, native fishes are rare or absent. Over the last 20 years, the native delta smelt population has taken a ten-fold decline in numbers, due in part by non-native species predation and lack of adequate food supply (USFWS, 2004).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives.)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta extends from Chipps Island to include leveed and flooded islands, river channels, sloughs, and tidal marshes. Stations were distributed throughout the Delta for sampling by the Dept. of Water Resources to assess water quality, some since the late 1960's.

Temporal Representation:

Numerous studies since the late 1960's.

Environmental Conditions:

Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification.

QAPP Information:

Peer Reviewed Journal Article and Reports.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	7370	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7370, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4215

Pollutant:

Unknown Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):