| Water Body Name: | Espinosa Lake |
| Water Body ID: | CAL3091900020020117151744 |
| Water Body Type: | Lake & Reservoir |
DECISION ID |
13149 |
Region 3 |
Espinosa Lake |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2013 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.1 the site exceeded numeric objectives for toxic pollutants. Using the binomial distribution, waters shall be placed on the section 303(d) list if the number of measured exceedances supports rejection of the null hypothesis as presented in Table 3.1. All of the 39 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline set to protect aquatic life (Sipmann and Finlayson, 2000). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. All of the 39 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline set to protect aquatic life (Sipmann and Finlayson, 2000) and this meets or 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 14038 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 39 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Espinosa Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 39 of 39 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| 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, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| 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 (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Espinosa Lake was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Rodgers Rd, Espinosa Lake] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/8/2002-10/21/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
15917 |
Region 3 |
Espinosa Lake |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Agriculture |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2013 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.1 the site exceeded numeric objectives for toxic pollutants. Using the binomial distribution, waters shall be placed on the section 303(d) list if the number of measured exceedances supports rejection of the null hypothesis as presented in Table 3.1. Twenty-three of the 38 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline set to protect aquatic life (Sipmann and Finlayson, 2000). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-three of the 38 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline set to protect aquatic life (Sipmann and Finlayson, 2000) and this meets or 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13903 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 23 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Espinosa Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 23 of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| 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, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| 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 (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Espinosa Lake was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Rodgers Rd, Espinosa Lake] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/8/2002-10/21/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||