Water Body Name: | Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5356000020080707125417 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
14506 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 9 samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 μg/L for DDE based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22497 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water samples were taken from Highline Canal between February of 1994 and August of 2001. One of the nine samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDE based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms for DDE (DDE-p,p). | ||||
Data Reference: | National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | - Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB. 2007)Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000)Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) for DDE of 0.00059 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Highline Canal Spill near Hilmar, California | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February of 1994 through August of 2001. Samples were taken at irregular intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. In accordance with section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy, data from major monitoring programs in California and Published USGS reports are considered of adequate quality. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
14508 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 50 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22499 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 25 Water samples were collected from Highline Canal from January 2000 through February 2004, representing 9 4-day average concentrations and 25 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 9 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.10 ug/L. 0 of 25 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.16 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water database (SWDB) for Central Valley waterbodies, 2000-2005 | ||||
Correspondence between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality data for waterbodies in the Central Valley | |||||
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 Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
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 Highline Canal. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. daily, twice per week, weekly, monthly) from January 2000 through February 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Minimum requirements for the CDPR Surface Water Database are: Name of the sampling agency or organization, Date that each sample was collected, Date of each sample analysis, County where samples were taken, Detailed sampling location information (including latitude and longitude or township/range/section if available), detailed map or description of each sampling site (i.e., address, cross roads, etc.), Name or description of water body sampled, Name of the active ingredient analyzed for; concentration detected (with unit of measurement), and limit of quantitation, Description of analytical QA/QC plan, or statement that no formal plan exists. Additional optional requirements are included on DPR's webpage at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/caps/req.htm | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22498 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 25 water samples were collected from Highline Canal from February 2005 through September 2006, representing 25 4-day average concentrations and 25 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 25 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.10 ug/L. 0 of 25 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.16 ug/L. | ||||
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: | 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 Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
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 Highline Canal at Highway 99 and at Lombardy Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from February 2005 through September 2006. | ||||
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 |
14511 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
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. Three 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. Three of 26 samples exceeded the E. Coli objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition collected 26 samples from February 2005 to September 2006. Three out of 26 samples exceeded the evaluation objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at two locations: Highline Canal at Highway 99 and Highline Canal at Lombardy Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from February 2005 to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
14509 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
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: | 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 34 samples fell below the minimum criterion water quality objective listed in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan 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: | 22514 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 34 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-four samples were taken from Highline Canal between 2005 and 2006. None of the thirty-four samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content 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: | From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Highline Canal at Lombardy Road and Highway 99 in Merced County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between February 2005 and September 2006. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals. | ||||
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 |
12899 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
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: | Agriculture |
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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two samples exceed the narative toxicity 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 24 available calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion more than once per three years (Section 3.11 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: | 22513 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-six water samples were collected from Highline Canal from February 2005 through September 2006, representing twenty-four calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations and twenty-four 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations. Two of the twenty-four calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.015 ug/L. One of the twenty-four 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.025 ug/L. Two samples were not used in this analysis because their quantitation limit (0.018 ug/L) was greater than the water quality criterion (0.015 ug/L) and, according to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, this data could not be used for this assessment. | ||||
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: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
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 Chlorpyrifos Criteria: 0.015 ug/L as a 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentration, and 0.025 ug/L as a 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years. | ||||
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 Highline Canal at Highway 99 and at Lombardy Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from February 2005 through September 2006. | ||||
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 |
12898 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
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. Four 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. Four of 11 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: | 22530 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of the 11 samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Two samples collected at Lombardy Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:10 May 2005 (74)2 May 2006 (50)Two samples collected at Highway 99 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:20 May 2006 (90)9 August 2006 (90) | ||||
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, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | 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 Highline Canal at Lombardy Road and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from May 2005 to August 2006. | ||||
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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12895 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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: | 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. Six 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. Six of 25 samples exceed the drinking water standard (4 µg/L) 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: | 22511 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 25 water samples were collected from Highline Canal from January 2000 through February 2004, representing 25 concentrations.6 of 25 available concentrations exceeded the MCL for drinking water standard (4 ug/L); | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water database (SWDB) for Central Valley waterbodies, 2000-2005 | ||||
Correspondence between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality data for waterbodies in the Central Valley | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this plan: Tables 64431-A (Inorganic Chemicals) and 64431-B (Fluoride) of Section 64431, Table 64444-A (Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444, and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Consumer Acceptance Limits) and 64449-B (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449.
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for simazine is 4 ug/L. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Highline Canal at Griffith Road | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. several samples per day and weekly) from January 2000 through February 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Minimum requirements for the CDPR Surface Water Database are: Name of the sampling agency or organization, Date that each sample was collected, Date of each sample analysis, County where samples were taken, Detailed sampling location information (including latitude and longitude or township/range/section if available), detailed map or description of each sampling site (i.e., address, cross roads, etc.), Name or description of water body sampled, Name of the active ingredient analyzed for; concentration detected (with unit of measurement), and limit of quantitation, Description of analytical QA/QC plan, or statement that no formal plan exists. Additional optional requirements are included on DPR's webpage at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/caps/req.htm | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides | ||||
DECISION ID |
12897 |
Region 5 |
Highline Canal (from Mustang Creek to Lateral No 8, Merced and Stanislaus Counties) |
||
Pollutant: | Unknown 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: | Agriculture |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine 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. Three of 27 samples tested with selenastrum exceed the narrative toxicity objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 6 of 29 samples tested with ceriodaphnia 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: | 22531 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 27 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of 27 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Two samples collected at Lombardy Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:17 August 2005 (80)16 March 2006 (30)One sample collected at Hwy 99 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:1 March 2006 (2) | ||||
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, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Highline Canal at Lombardy Road and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February 2005 to September 2006. | ||||
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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22529 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 6 of the 29 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Two samples collected at Lombardy Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:14 June 2006 (65)13 September 2006 (39)Four samples collected at Highway 99 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:10 May 2005 (47)19 May 2005 (0)16 March 2006 (0)13 September 2006 (67) | ||||
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, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Highline Canal at Lombardy Road and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February 2005 to September 2006. | ||||
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): | |||||