Water Body Name: | San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5353000020041020143854 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
25071 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
(DELIST - TOXICANT POLLUTANT) 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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. Zero of 346 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in 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 not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6950 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 346 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 346 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Selenium levels should not to exceed 5 ug/L (CTR) | ||||
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 at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jan 4 2001 to Sep 27 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
24504 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Boron |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
TMDL Name: | San Joaquin River Salt and Boron |
TMDL Project Code: | 66 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 02/08/2007 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 this pollutant. Three of samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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. Three out of 73 total samples exceeded the March to September monthly mean objective and 0 out of 263 total samples exceeded the single sample maximum objective. From 16 September to 14 March, 4 out of 75 total samples exceeded the monthly mean objective and 0 out of 267 total samples exceeded the single sample maximum objective. Analysis of data for all of the four objectives resulted in exceedances below the allowable frequency listed in 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 not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22640 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 73 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | From 15 March to 15 September, 3 out of 73 total samples exceeded the monthly mean objective and 0 out of 263 total samples exceeded the single sample maximum objective. From 16 September to 14 March, 4 out of 75 total samples exceeded the monthly mean objective and 0 out of 267 total samples exceeded the single sample maximum objective. The objective specific to critical years was not used because none of the 11 years were critically dry. | ||||
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: | For the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernalis (including at Maze Blvd), from 15 March to 15 September, the Boron water quality objective is 2.0 mg/L (max.) and 0.8 mg/L (monthly mean); from 16 September to 14 March the water quality objective is 2.6 mg/L (max.), 1.0 mg/L (monthly mean), except during Critical Years when the water quality objective is 1.3 mg/L (monthly mean) according to the CVRWQCB Basin Plan (2007a, Table III-1, p. III-3.00). | ||||
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: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from San Joaquin River at Maze Blvd. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately weekly between March 1996 and March 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) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2742 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
26349 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. None of 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. None of 1 samples tested with fathead minnow exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. A minimum sample size of 28 is required to delist according to Table 4.1. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22688 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample tested with Pimephales promelas was not toxic nor did it violate the narrative toxicity 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. 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 Fisher's Exact 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: | The sample was collected from San Joaquin River at Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in October 2000 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. 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) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4547 | ||||
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
24438 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
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: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | San Joaquin River Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos |
TMDL Project Code: | 209 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/2007 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this 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. There is sufficient justification to place it in 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.. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 4.1 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 4.1 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 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 20 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-day average concentration criterion and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The pollutant cant be delisted based on the 303(d) list under Section 4.1 because the number of samples is less than 28. 4. The San Joaquin River Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB in 2005 and approved by USEPA on December 20, 2006. 5. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22743 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 20 water samples were collected from San Joaquin River from April through August 2001, representing 20 4-day average concentrations and 20 1-hour average concentrations. 0 of 20 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.0 of 20 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.025 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 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 Maze Blvd. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from January 2000 to August 2001 at weekly interval. | ||||
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: | 2738 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
20427 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | San Joaquin River Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos |
TMDL Project Code: | 209 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/2007 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this 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. There is sufficient justification to place it in 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.. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 4.1 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 4.1 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this does not exceed the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion more than once every three years. In addition, none of 20 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion and this does not exceed the 1-hour average concentration criterion more than once every three years. The data is not sufficient (less than 28 samples), and the samples were collected in 2001 which does not represent the most current condition. 4. The San Jaoquin River Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB in 2005 and approved by USEPA on 12/20/2006. 5. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22755 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 20 Water samples were collected from San Joaquin River from April through August 2001, representing 20 4-day average concentrations and 20 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 20 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.1 ug/L. 0 of 20 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 San Joaquin River at Maze Blvd. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at weekly from April through August 2001. | ||||
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: | 2739 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
21043 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 24 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 24 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6587 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 24 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ammonia. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
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: | Ammonia levels should not to exceed the calculated limit. Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection (Salmonid present) Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) (1-hour Average (mg N/L)) calculated based on the following formula: CMC = (0.275/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (39.0/(1 + 10pH-7.204)) which incorporates pH (US EPA, 2005: Appendix C) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from May 25 2000 to Jun 13 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
21056 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 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 21 samples exceeded the USEPA Primary MCL 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6588 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 21 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Arsenic levels should not exceed 10 ug/L (USEPA Primary MCL). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 7 2001 to Jun 26 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
21258 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 10 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6592 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 10 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR criterion for dissolved cadmium | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved cadmium levels should not exceed the calculated limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average dissolved)=(EXP(1.128*LN(hardness)-3.6867))*(1.136672-(LN(hardness)*0.041838)) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the San Joaquin River at Maze
Boulevard |
||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between June 7, 2001 and November 21, 2002 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
25158 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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. None of 17 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule 4-day average criteria for dissolved Copper and 1 of the 14 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule 4-day average criteria for total Copper. A total of 1 out of 31 samples exceed the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Total Copper data was used when dissolved Copper data was not available. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6593 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 14 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule 4-day average criteria for total Copper. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Feb 1 1986 to Jun 26 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6595 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule 4-day average criteria for dissolved Copper. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly from November 2000 to November 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
24345 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 5 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21909 | ||||
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: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | - Twenty (20) water samples were taken from the San Joaquin River at Maze Road bridge near Modesto, California in the Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River stretch from April 2001 through August of 2001. - These were averaged on a 30-day basis and resulted five samples. - One of the available five water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDE (p,p'-DDE; o,p'-DDE) based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms.- Fifteen water samples had high reporting limits hence the data could not be used in the analysis according to the Listing Policy, Section 6.5.1.1. | ||||
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 0.00059 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
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 San Joaquin River (in the Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River stretch) at Maze Road bridge near Modesto, California. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between April 2001 and August 2001. Samples were collected at weekly 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 |
26263 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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 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. Nine of 63 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23346 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 63 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 63 samples from July 2002 to June 2006. Nine out of the 63 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 San Joaquin River at Maze Boulevard. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from July 2002 to June 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 |
21057 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 17 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6597 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR CMC for dissolved lead | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved lead levels should not exceed the calculated CTR value based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average, dissolved)=(EXP(1.273*LN(hardness)-1.46))*(1.46203-(LN(hardness)*0.145712)) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the San Joaquin River at Maze Boulevard | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between November 30, 2000 and November 21, 2002 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
26347 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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 the available twenty water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria for human consumption of water and organisms with a 10-6 risk for carcinogens of 0.019 mg/g 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23422 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | - Twenty water samples were collected between April 2001 and August 2001 from the San Joaquin River at Maze Road bridge near Modesto California. This site lies in the Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River Reach of the San Joaquin River.
- None of the twenty water samples exceeded the CTR criteria of 0.019 mg/g for human consumption of water and organisms. |
||||
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) based on criteria for human consumption of water and organisms with a 10-6 risk for carcinogens of 0.019 mg/g. |
||||
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 San Joaquin River at Maze Road bridge near Modesto California. This site lies in the Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River Reach of the San Joaquin River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at weekly intervals between April 2001 and August 2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
21058 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Molybdenum |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 11 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 11 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6609 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molybdenum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 11 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Molybdenum. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Molybdenum levels should not to exceed 15 ug/L (Basin Plan Objective) | ||||
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 at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Aug 27 1998 to Oct 30 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
20903 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 17 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6611 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR CMC for dissolved nickel | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved nickel levels should not exceed the calculated CTR limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average, dissolved)=(EXP(0.846*LN(hardness)+2.255))*(0.998) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the San Joaquin River at Maze Boulevard | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between February 1, 1986, and June 26, 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
21555 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 22 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 22 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6612 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 22 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate-N. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
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: | Nitrate-N levels should not to exceed 100 mg/L (USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SJR @ Maze. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 29 2000 to Sep 27 2001 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
27860 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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 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. Two of two hundred and fifty-two 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 252 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two hundred and fifty-two samples were taken from the San Joaquin River between 2004 and 2006. Two of the two hundred and fifty-two samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water. | ||||
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: | From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (COLD) Cold Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 7mg/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 San Joaquin River at Maze Boulevard. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between June 2001 and June 2006. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals. | ||||
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 |
20904 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 1 of 17 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 6614 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR CMC for dissolved zinc | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Main-Stem San Joaquin River | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved zinc levels should not exceed the calculated CTR limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration=EXP((0.8473*LN(hardness))+0.884)*(0.978) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the San Joaquin River at Maze Boulevard | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between November 30, 2000, and November 21, 2002 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
23726 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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 20 samples exceeded the minimum criterion Water Quality Objectives for Alpha-HCH listed under the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23421 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | - Twenty water samples were taken from the San Joaquin River at Maze Road bridge near Modesto between April 2001 and August 2001. None of the available twenty water samples exceeded the minimum criterion for Alpha-HCH in surface water listed under the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria.- The twenty samples had high Reporting Limits hence the data could not be used in the analysis (Listing Policy Section 6.5.1.1) (SWRCB, 2004). | ||||
Data Reference: | National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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 (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: | National Ambient Water Quality Criteria Guideline <0.0026 g/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the San Joaquin River at Maze Road bridge near Modesto, California. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between April 2001 and August 2001. Samples were collected at weekly 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 |
26417 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. Thirty-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 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. Thirty-two of 532 samples exceeded the pH 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23347 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 532 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 32 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 532 samples from October 1995 to June 2006. Thirty-two out of 532 samples were outside the acceptable range; twenty-five samples were higher than the acceptable range and seven samples were lower than the acceptable range. | ||||
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: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH. | ||||
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 San Joaquin River at Maze Boulevard. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from October 1995 to June 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 |
20114 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2011 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4544 | ||||
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: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
28680 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
USEPA Final Approval Decision Details: The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following: The 2010 303(d) list transmittal letter from Thomas Howard, SWRCB, to Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, dated October 11, 2010 identified this water body pollutant combination as being held in abeyance due to existing litigation. According to the November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval, partial disapproval letter and enclosure for California's 2008-2010 list (from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB), USEPA stated that it understood the State Water Board's October 11, 2010 transmittal letter, which held several of its listing recommendations in abeyance, as "the State is not listing" those water body-pollutant combinations (enclosure, at pages 6-7). USEPA has added this water body pollutant combination listed in 2004-2006 because upon request to the State for good cause for delisting, USEPA did not receive a water quality based reason for their delisting. For this segment, no new data was included in the factsheet or supporting documentation to support removal of the impairment from the Section 303(d) List. USEPA has carefully reviewed SWAMP data and continues to find significant impairment throughout the San Joaquin River from Bear Creek to the Stanislaus River. The USEPA electrical conductivity data summary for the San Joaquin River (Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) is as follows: For the Agricultural (AGR) beneficial use, the maximum 30 day running average for April 1 to August 31 is 0.7 uS/mm and for Sept 1 - March 31 is 1.0 uS/mm. For this segment, there were 3745 samples to assess the AGR beneficial use. Of those 3745 samples, 1102 samples exceeded the objective. For the Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN) beneficial use, the objective is 900 uS/cm. For this segment, there were 537 samples to assess the MUN beneficial use. Of those 537 samples, 238 exceeded the objective. Observed exceedances are greater than the 10% exceedance threshold for conventional and other pollutants as expressed in Table 3.2 of the State Listing Policy. For clarification, the Regional Water Board decision recommendation made prior to USEPA's final decision is presented below: Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary to reflect USEPA's final decision. In some cases, LOEs have been created to reflect USEPA's analysis. Regional Board Decision Recommendation (prior to State Water Board approval): This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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. One hundred and sixty-two 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 hundred and sixty-two of 556 samples exceeded the water quality objective for electrical conductivity and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | For clarification, the Regional Water Board decision recommendation made prior to USEPA's final decision is presented below:
Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary to reflect USEPA's final decision. In some cases, LOEs have been created to reflect USEPA's analysis. Regional Board Decision Recommendation (prior to State Water Board approval): This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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. One hundred and sixty-two 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 hundred and sixty-two of 556 samples exceeded the water quality objective for electrical conductivity and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 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. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision recommendation be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22641 | ||||
Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 537 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 238 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | For the Municpal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN) beneficial use, the objective is 900 uS/cm. For this segment, there were 537 samples to assess the MUN beneficial use. Of those 537 samples, 238 exceeded the California Secondary MCL for Municipal Water Quality Objectives for electrical conductivity in surface water. | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review | ||||
USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids to California 2010 303(d) list for some Central Valley - Region 5 water bodies | |||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 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: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from San Joaquin River at Maze Road at Hwy 132 (Lat 37 38 31, Long 121 13 40) in San Joaquin County, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between October 1995 and October 2006. Samples were collected at approximately weekly intervals. | ||||
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) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2741 | ||||
Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31465 | ||||
Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3745 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1102 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | For this segment, there were 3745 samples to assess the AGR beneficial use. Of those 3745 samples, 1102 samples exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review | ||||
USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids to California 2010 303(d) list for some Central Valley - Region 5 water bodies | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For the Agricultural (AGR) beneficial use, the Basin Plan "recommended" maximum 30-day running average for April 1 to August 31 is 0.7 uS/mm and for Sept 1 - March 31 is 1.0 uS/mm. | ||||
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 San Joaquin River at Maze Road at Hwy 132 in San Joaquin County, CA (Lat 37 38 31, Long 121 13 40). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between October 1995 and October 2006. Samples were collected at approximately weekly intervals. | ||||
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 |
20115 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2011 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4545 | ||||
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: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
20116 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2012 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4546 | ||||
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: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 |
30314 |
Region 5 |
San Joaquin River ( Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
USEPA Final Approval Decision Details: The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following: USEPA has added San Joaquin River (Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) to the list of water quality limited segments for which a TMDL is required for temperature because applicable water quality standards for this water body are established in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin Plan. Additionally, the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin Plan addresses temperature with the following narrative and numeric objectives: "The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. At no time or place shall the temperature of COLD or WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5 degrees F above natural receiving water temperature. In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging periods may be applied provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected." (RWQCB Central Valley Region, 2009, pp. III-8) Documentation of the natural receiving water temperature is not readily available. An assessment of whether the migration and spawning uses were being achieved was conducted by comparing the current temperatures to the temperature requirements of salmonid species identified in the USEPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards (2003a). USEPA believes that the Region10 guidance and its associated Technical Issue Papers provide the most comprehensive compilation of research related to salmonid temperature requirements available. The studies compiled in the guidance and associated papers address the full geographic extent of salmonid populations including California. In this segment, the Chinook salmon adult migration period occurs from river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal) between Sep 1-Oct 31 (Julian weeks 36-43). Stream temperatures were monitored at river miles 80, 81, 83, and 84 from 1996 to 2006. Thirteen of 13 yearly maximum seven-day averages of maximum daily temperatures (7DADM) values exceeded the 20 degrees C benchmark. The Chinook salmon smolt out migration period occurs from river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal) between Mar 15-Jun 15 (Julian weeks 11-24). Stream temperatures were monitored at river miles 80, 81, 83 and 84 from 1997 to 2007. Nine of 12 yearly maximum 7DADM values exceeded the 20 degrees C benchmark. For clarification, the Regional Water Board and State Water Board decision recommendations prior to USEPA's final decision are presented below: Note: All LOEs have been revised where necessary to reflect USEPA's final decision. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. |
State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | For clarification, the Regional Water Board and State Water Board decision recommendations prior to USEPA's final decision are presented below:
Note: All LOEs have been revised where necessary to reflect USEPA's final decision. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26229 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Stream temperatures were measured by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) using data loggers (Stowaways, Tidbits and Hobo Temp Pros). Monitoring occurred from 1996 to 2006 depending on the monitoring station, identified by a river mile. The 7DADM was recorded weekly for each river mile. The maximum 7DADM value was calculated for each year. Based on the data provided, 13 out of 13 maximum 7DADM values exceeded the <20 degrees C criteria from 1996 to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Cover letter, data and information regarding elevated water temperatures in the San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers | ||||
Access and DSS database files of water temperature data, one each for the San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers | |||||
USEPA Partial Approval Disapproval Letter and enclosures for California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
USEPA Final Decision Letter with enclosures and responsiveness summary regarding waters added to California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of temperature to California 2010 303(d) list for San Joaquin River segments | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses.
In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging period may be applies provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected. (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Pg. III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives) |
||||
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: | The guideline used was the 2003 US EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards (USEPA, 2003). The document includes recommended temperature criteria for salmon and trout based on different life stages. The recommended temperature for salmon and trout adult migration is <20 degrees C for a 7DADM. The adult migration life stage occurs from river mile river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). This life stage occurs during Julian weeks 36 through 43, which is approximately September 1st through October 31st. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The adult migration life stage occurs from river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). Stream temperatures were monitored at the following stream locations during the adult migration life stage: River Miles 80 (Gardner Cove), 81 (Old Fisherman's Club), 83 (above Tuolumne River), and 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The adult migration life stage occurs during Julian weeks 36 through 43, which is approximately September 1st through October 31st. Data was collected during this life stage on a continuous basis (hourly intervals) from 1996 to 2006, depending on the station and year monitored. Refer to the CDFG 2007 report (Gordus, 2007) for specific years for each location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is supported by a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 31.45 and are acceptable for use in developing the section 303(d) list. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26524 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | QUALITATIVE (EVALUATED) ASSESSMENT - UNSPECIFIED | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The San Joaquin watershed had a large spring-run of chinook salmon, along with a much smaller fall-run (Hatton and Clark, 1942). By about 1920, chinook salmon populations declined due to changes within the upper San Joaquin watershed. Many changes such as dams, water diversion, mining and harvest have been suggested for their decline. By 1950s salmon became extinct in the mainstem San Joaquin River and populations of less than 500 were a common occurrence in the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers.
However, the gradual decline in salmon populations has been tied to the unsuitable high water temperatures, which increases juveniles susceptibility to disease, predation and accumulation of contaminants (Myrick and Cech 2001). Since 1952 there have been several peak escapement trends, but overall, the trend over time to 2006 has been declining dramatically with the 1952 peak of over 8,000 salmon to 1,000 salmon in 2006. Steelhead, described by Latta (1929, 1949) and other authors write about good numbers and casually being taken by indigeneous peoples. Now the runs are extinct in the mainstem and are listed as a Federally Threatened species. |
||||
Data Reference: | Cover letter, data and information regarding elevated water temperatures in the San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses.
In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging period may be applies provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected. (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Pg. III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives) |
||||
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: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (SWRCB, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Policy For Developing California's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | San Joaquin River | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Information referenced from year 1920 through 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | San Joaquin Fall-Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Rainbow Trout Historical Population Trend Summary. Dean Marston. September 2007. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Stream temperatures were measured by CDFG using data loggers (Stowaways, Tidbits and Hobo Temp Pros). Monitoring occurred from 1997 to 2007 depending on the monitoring station, identified by a river mile. The 7DADM was recorded weekly for each river mile. The maximum 7DADM value was calculated for each year. Based on the data provided, 9 out of 12 maximum 7DADM values exceeded the <20 degrees C criteria from 1997 to 2007. | ||||
Data Reference: | Cover letter, data and information regarding elevated water temperatures in the San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers | ||||
Access and DSS database files of water temperature data, one each for the San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers | |||||
USEPA Partial Approval Disapproval Letter and enclosures for California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
USEPA Final Decision Letter with enclosures and responsiveness summary regarding waters added to California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of temperature to California 2010 303(d) list for San Joaquin River segments | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses.
In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging period may be applies provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected. (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Pg. III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives) |
||||
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: | The guideline used was the 2003 US EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards (USEPA, 2003). The document includes recommended temperature criteria for salmon and trout based on different life stages. The recommended temperature for salmon and trout migration is <20 degrees C for a 7DADM. The adult migration life stage occurs from river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). This life stage occurs during Julian weeks 11 through 24, which is approximately March 15th through June 15th. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The smolt out migration life stage occurs from river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). Stream temperatures were monitored at the following stream location during the migration life stage: River Miles 80 (Gardner Cove), 81 (Old Fisherman's Club), 83 (above Tuolumne River), and 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The smolt out migration life stage occurs from river mile 80 (Gardner Cove) to river mile 84 (above West Side Lift Canal). Data was collected during this life stage on a continuous basis (hourly intervals) from 1997 to 2007, depending on the station and year monitored. Refer to the CDFG 2007 report (Gordus, 2007) for specific years for each location. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is supported by a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 31.45 and are acceptable for use in developing the section 303(d) list. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||