| Water Body Name: | Poso Slough |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5412000020070511112656 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
13558 |
Region 5 |
Poso Slough |
||
| Pollutant: | Salinity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 samples exceeded the water quality objectives for electrical conductivity (salinity) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22977 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Salinity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Only 2 samples were taken from Poso Slough in 2005. Of the 2 samples, 0 samples exceeded the California Secondary MCL for electrical conductivity in surface water. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL recommended level of 900 uS/cm. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007a).The secondary MCL's for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The 'recommended' concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses. Though individual listing evaluations did not look at the water supply source serving the given geographic area, there are certain areas that receive supply waters (such as the Delta Mendota Canal) that at times may be elevated above the recommended level of the secondary MCL. Where future information is made available to document this to be the case, these water bodies may be re-evaluated in future listing cycles. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sample was collected from Poso Slough @ Hudson in Fresno County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in March and August 2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12412 |
Region 5 |
Poso Slough |
||
| Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity |
| 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: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two 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 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. Two of 3 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective 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: | 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: | 22978 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the three samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic. Two samples collected at Poso Slough at Hudson exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:25 March 2005 (29)20 August 2005 (0)Toxicity observations were associated with pyrethroid and organophosphate pesticides. LC50s for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used in this study as toxicity threshold benchmarks in a Toxic Unit (TU) analysis normalized to organic carbon content. The TU analysis of Poso Slough sediment samples demonstrated that the sample with significant bioassay mortality collected on 3/25/05 had 2.96 TUs of pyrethroid pesticides (0.47 TU bifenthrin, 2.16 TU lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.05 TU permethrin, and 0.28 TU cyfluthrin) and 0.11 TU of chlorpyrifos. The other sediment sample with significant bioassay mortality was collected on 8/20/05 and had 0.00 TUs of pyrethroids and 0.79 TUs of chlorpyrifos. A sample was also collected on 11/20/05, which did not have statistically significant bioassay mortality. The 11/20/05 sample contained 0.22 TUs of pyrethroids and 0.59 TUs of chlorpyrifos. In summary, only one of the toxic sediment samples had concentrations of pyrethroids above 1 TU. Chlorpyrifos was not observed above 1 TU. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| 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. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from one location on Poso Slough in Fresno County. Sediment toxicity was observed from two samples. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2005 to August 2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||