Water Body Name: | Harding Drain |
Water Body ID: | CAR5355000019980813181351 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
126702 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Readily available data for this water body have not been used to determine standards attainment. No decision has been made regarding beneficial use support due to a lack of clarity in the status of this water body under the Clean Water Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. A decision regarding the beneficial use support of this water body will be made during a future Integrated Report cycle if it is determined that this water body is classified as a Water of the United States under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the listing status for this water body-pollutant combination should not change this cycle because of a lack of clarity in the status of this water body under the Clean Water Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 64304 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that one of two sample results exceed the criterion for electrical conductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB5 Bacti Source ID FY0809 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), an upper level (1,600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2,200 uS/cm). The recommended level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is protective of all drinking water uses. | ||||
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 Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ TID 5 Harding Drain @ Carpenter Road - 535STC501] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/19/2009-5/26/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 211484 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Harding Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535STC501) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-27 and 2016-08-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 229939 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB5 Monitoring data for Harding Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 8 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535STC501) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2014-05-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
68328 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 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. Not enough samples exceeded the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of 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. 4. Two of 115 samples exceeded the 30-day CCC, 3 of 327 samples exceeded the 4-day average CCC and none of 327 samples exceeded the 1-hour average CMC and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2745 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 115 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of 115 samples exceeded the thirty-day CCC (chronic criterion). Three of 327 samples exceed the four-day CCC. None of 327 samples exceed the one-hour average CMC (acute criterion) (Turlock Irrigation District, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan narrative water quality objective for toxicity states that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 3 sites: CMD32Hodges, HD1, and HD2. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from September 2001 to August 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Turlock Irrigation District Sampling and Analysis Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2744 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Letter submitted on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District requesting Harding Drain to be delisted for ammonia due to a UAA that was completed. | ||||
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 |
77697 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four 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 77 samples (2001 through 2008) exceeded the toxicity objective for invertebrate toxicity and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, None of 75 samples (2001 through 2008) exceeded the toxicity objective for vertebrate and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, no data was submitted to re-evaluate the historical listing for algal toxicity (9 out of 15 samples tested with Selenastrum were toxic from 1988 through 1990). This listing currently only applies to algal toxicity. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. State Board Review and Conclusion: The Central Valley Water Board staff requested the State Water Board to remove Harding Drain for unknown toxicity from the List in the Central Valley Water Board's transmittal letter to the State Board. According to the transmittal letter, Regional Board staff analyzed the data and determined that data show that fish and invertebrate toxicity are no longer present. Regional Board staff thought the original listing was based on algal toxicity. However, upon further investigation it was found that algal toxicity had not been observed in the original data used to list this water body. State Board staff re-evaluated the data and the recommendation has been revised. Based on the result of data re-evaluation, State Water Board staff recommend delisting Harding Drain for Unknown Toxicity. Four 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 in favor of 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 77 samples (2001 through 2008) exceeded the toxicity objective for invertebrate toxicity and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, None of 75 samples (2001 through 2008) exceeded the toxicity objective for vertebrate 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 met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2743 | ||||
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Letter submitted on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District requesting Harding Drain to be delisted for unknown toxicity due to a UAA that was completed. | ||||
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: | 25074 | ||||
Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 25 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Unknown Toxicity-Pimephales promelas. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a Fisher¿s Exact analysis with 96-hour acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Harding Drain at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2000 to November 2005. | ||||
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: | 28223 | ||||
Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 50 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 50 samples collected by the Turlock Irrgation District exceeded the evaluation guideline for Unknown Toxicity-Pimephales promelas. | ||||
Data Reference: | Comments on the Proposed Revisions to the 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies for the Central Valley Region | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a Fisher¿s Exact analysis with 96-hour acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at HD1 (Harding Drain 0.5 miles downstream of City of Turlock's WWTP) and HD2 (Harding Drain at Carpenter Road). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from May 2006 to May 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan for a State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 50 grant. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22496 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample tested with Hyalella azteca was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Carpenter Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:8 April 2003 (64) | ||||
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 t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Harding Drain at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in April 2003. | ||||
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: | 25075 | ||||
Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 25 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Unknown Toxicity-Ceriodaphia dubia. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a Fisher¿s Exact analysis with 48-hour acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Harding Drain at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from June 2001 to November 2006. | ||||
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: | 28221 | ||||
Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 52 samples collected by the Turlock Irrigation District exceeded the evaluation guideline for Unknown Toxicity-Ceriodaphia dubia. | ||||
Data Reference: | Comments on the Proposed Revisions to the 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies for the Central Valley Region | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a Fisher¿s Exact analysis with 48-hour acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at HD1 (Harding Drain 0.5 miles downstream of City of Turlock's WWTP) and HD2 (Harding Drain at Carpenter Road). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly from May 2006 to May 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan for a State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 50 grant. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73968 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirty-one of 39 samples exceed the Water Contact Recreation evaluation guideline and 17 of 37 exceed the Non-Contact Recreation evaluation guideline. 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 CWA 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. Thirty-one of 39 samples exceed the Water Contact Recreation evaluation guideline and 17 of 37 exceed the Non-Contact Recreation evaluation guideline. This exceeds 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 64305 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that one of two sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Escherichia coli. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB5 Bacti Source ID FY0809 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
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 U.S. EPA recommended objective for a single-sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated-beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule [Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220] | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ TID 5 Harding Drain @ Carpenter Road - 535STC501] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/19/2009-5/26/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 30 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty of the 37 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria. The exceeded results are as follows: 10/15/2002 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 328MPN. 1/14/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 488MPN. 1/22/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 261MPN. 2/4/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 238MPN. 2/20/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 461MPN. 3/6/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 435MPN. 4/3/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 435MPN. 5/8/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1120MPN. 6/5/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 649MPN. 6/19/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 345MPN. 6/30/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 291MPN. 7/31/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 365MPN. 8/7/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 517MPN. 8/21/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1203MPN. 8/28/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1300MPN. 9/11/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 866MPN. 9/25/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 980MPN. 10/23/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 411MPN. 11/6/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 345MPN. 1/8/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 816MPN. 8/26/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 285MPN. 9/30/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 238MPN. 11/23/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1203MPN. 12/29/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of >2419.6MPN. 1/27/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 361MPN. 2/24/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of >2419.6MPN. 3/29/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 365MPN. 4/28/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 387MPN. 5/26/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1553MPN. 6/30/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 248MPN. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows | ||||
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: | E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 235 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jul 30 2002 to Jun 30 2005 | ||||
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: | 7560 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 17 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen of the 37 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria. The exceeded results are as follows: 1/14/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 488MPN. 2/20/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 461MPN. 3/6/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 435MPN. 4/3/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 435MPN. 5/8/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1120MPN. 6/5/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 649MPN. 8/7/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 517MPN. 8/21/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1203MPN. 8/28/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1300MPN. 9/11/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 866MPN. 9/25/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 980MPN. 10/23/2003 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 411MPN. 1/8/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 816MPN. 11/23/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1203MPN. 12/29/2004 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of >2419.6MPN. 2/24/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of >2419.6MPN. 5/26/2005 - a sample taken at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road had a result of 1553MPN. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows | ||||
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: | E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 409 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jul 30 2002 to Jun 30 2005 | ||||
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 |
69540 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Agriculture |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2026 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This water body segment-pollutant combination is being addressed through Basin Plan requirements established under CRWQCB-CVR resolution R5-20140041, and implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural discharges. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The Basin Plan identifies numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are achieved. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This water body - pollutant combination is being considered for removal from the 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. No new data or information was available for the 2014 cycle. Under section 4.11, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The evidence indicates that chlorpyrifos concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but existing pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards because the impairment is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirty-six out of 319 available water sample results exceed the water quality objective for aquatic freshwater habitat (WARM or COLD). 4. In addition, 3 of 72 available calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion. These exceedances occurred more than once every three years. One of 185 available 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion. This exceedance did not occur more than once every three years. 5. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this water body segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers, who are regulated under enforceable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 6. In 2016, the Board adopted Resolution R5-2014-0041 establishing Basin Plan amendments that primarily address the regulation of agricultural pesticide runoff and discharges of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Central Valley which are implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural dischargers. The amendments established numeric water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos and a control program to ensure that the objectives will be attained within a reasonable, specified time frame. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. 8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 9. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information described in the lines of evidence associated with this decision, the Regional Water Board determined that this water body and pollutant combination is still impaired and that it should be listed as being addressed by another regulatory program that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame because an alternative State regulatory program is in place which can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. 8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 9. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22471 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 Water samples were collected from Harding Draing from January 2000 through August 2001, representing 8 4-day average concentrations and 11 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 8 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L. 0 of 11 available 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 Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
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 | ||||
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 Harding Drain at Carpenter Road Near Patterson California_USGS NAWQA site. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. weekly, daily) from January 2000 to 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: | 2748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Letter submitted on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District requesting Harding Drain to be delisted for chlorpyrifos due to a UAA that was completed. | ||||
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: | 2749 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 319 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 36 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-six out of 319 samples exceeded the water quality guideline (Turlock Irrigation District, 2006). Data was collected by Turlock Irrigation District (TID), USGS/NAWQA, DPR, and City of Turlock. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative pesticide objectives state, in part:
-No individual pesticides or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses, -Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses, Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegredation policies, and waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Department of Fish and Game guideline of 0.014 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at three sites: CMD32Hodges, HD1, and HD2. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected by TID, from 9/12/01-8/25/04, by USGS/NAWQA from 4/22/92-8/2/01, by DPR from 3/4/91-2/9/93, and by the City of Turlock from 2/17/01-5/23/05. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | TID Sampling and Analysis Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 28225 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 64 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixty-four samples were collected from Harding Draing by Turlock Irrigation District from May 2006 through July 2008, representing sixty-four 4-day average concentrations. Three of 64 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Comments on the Proposed Revisions to the 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies for the Central Valley Region | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day 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 HD1 (Harding Drain 0.5 miles downstream of City of Turlock's WWTP) and HD2 (Harding Drain at Carpenter Road). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from May 2006 through July 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan for a State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 50 grant. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides | ||||
DECISION ID |
73804 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | "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 California Toxics Rule for Warm Freshwater Habitat 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8737 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 11 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR criterion for dissolved cadmium | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between September 26, 2001 and November 20, 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 |
70923 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 exceed the California Toxics Rule 4-day average criteria for dissolved Copper 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8739 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial 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: | Zero of the 20 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 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 |
88287 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
This pollutant was originally considered for placement on the CWA 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. Six of 405 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfied the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfied the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 405 water sample results did not exceed the evaluation guidelines, and this sample size was insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2747 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 405 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 16 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixteen out of 405 samples exceeded guidelines. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative pesticide objectives state, in part:
-No individual pesticides or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses, -Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses, -Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegredation policies, and waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Water Quality Criteria for Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos, CCC 0.10ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 3 sites: CMD32 Hodges, HD1, and HD2. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 9/12/2001-8/24/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Turlock Irrigation District Sampling and Analysis Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2746 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Letter submitted on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District requesting Harding Drain to be delisted for diazinon due to a UAA that was completed. | ||||
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 |
70700 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | "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 21 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule for Warm Freshwater Habitat 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8743 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 21 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR CMC for dissolved lead | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between October 26, 2000 and November 20, 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 |
72575 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | "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 21 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule for Warm Freshwater Habitat 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8747 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 21 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR CMC for dissolved nickel | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between October 26, 2000, and November 20, 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 |
71794 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
This pollutant was originally 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: 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. 0 of 14 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 14 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 14 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate-N. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 26 2000 to Oct 24 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 |
70078 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
This pollutant was originally considered for listing under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 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: 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 59 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8740 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 59 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 59 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Dissolved Oxygen. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan Objective sets the minimum Dissolved Oxygen content at 5 mg/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 at TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 5 2001 to Jun 30 2005 | ||||
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 |
70451 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 only 1 sample is available and a minimum of 2 is needed for evaluation under section 3.1.
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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8751 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 30 2002 to Oct 30 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 |
75188 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Trebufos |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 36 samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23398 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trebufos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 36 water samples were collected from Harding Drain at Carpenter Road from April 1992 through October 2001 representing 36 concentrations. One of the 36 samples had a concentration that exceeded 0.02 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data | ||||
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).
For most pesticides, numerical water quality objectives have not been adopted. USEPA criteria and other guidance are also extremely limited. Since this situation is not likely to change in the near future, the Board will use the best available technical information to evaluate compliance with the narrative objectives. Where valid testing has developed 96 hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms (the concentration that kills one half of the test organisms in 96 hours), the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and the organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative 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 96 hour LC50 for the most sensitive species, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus, was 0.2 ug/L (USEPA Ecotox database, 2008). One tenth of this LC50, 0.02 ug/L, is the daily maximum concentration. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ecotoxicity database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Harding Drain at Carpenter Road, near Patterson, CA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (biweekly, weekly, monthly) from April 1992 through August 2001. | ||||
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 |
74821 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | "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 20 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule for Warm Freshwater Habitat 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8753 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 20 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR CMC for dissolved zinc | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved zinc levels should not exceed the calculated 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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 26, 2000, to November 20, 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 |
74957 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, zero of the 71 samples exceed the WARM 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 CWA 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. Zero of the 71 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 64309 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of two sample results exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB5 Bacti Source ID FY0809 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
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: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ TID 5 Harding Drain @ Carpenter Road - 535STC501] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/19/2009-5/26/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8741 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 71 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 71 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (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 TID Lateral 5 at Carpenter Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 26 2000 to Jun 30 2005 | ||||
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 |
74063 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 35 samples exceed the 0.00059 μg/L California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit based on a human health 10-6 carcinogenic risk level for consumption of water and aquatic organisms for DDE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22472 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 35 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-five water samples were taken from Harding Drain between April of 1992 and August of 2001. Five of the available five samples exceed the 0.00059 ug/L California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit based on a human health 10-6 carcinogenic risk for consumption of water and aquatic organisms for DDE (4,4-DDE). | ||||
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). | ||||
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 | ||||
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 Harding Drain at Carpenter Rd. near Patterson, California. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June of 1994 through August of 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 |
73974 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 11 samples exceed the minimum criterion Water Quality Objectives Hexachlorobenzene listed by the US EPA for Sources of Drinking Water (water and fish consumption) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22485 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eleven samples were taken from the Harding Drain between 2000 and 2001. Four of the eleven samples exceed USEPA IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) for maximum Hexachlorobenzene content in surface water with a limit of < 0.00075 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: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000) - Sources of Drinking Water (water & fish consumption) with a limit of < 0.00075 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
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 Harding Drain at Carpenter Rd Nr Patterson, CA USGS NAWQA site in Stanislaus County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between January 2000 and August 2001. Samples were collected at monthly intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Minimum requirements for the CDPR Surface Water Database are: Name of the sampling agency or organization, Date that each sample was collected, Date of each sample analysis, County where samples were taken, Detailed sampling location information (including latitude and longitude or township/range/section if available), detailed map or description of each sampling site (i.e., address, cross roads, etc.), Name or description of water body sampled, Name of the active ingredient analyzed for; concentration detected (with unit of measurement), and limit of quantitation, Description of analytical QA/QC plan, or statement that no formal plan exists. Additional optional requirements are included on DPR's webpage at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/caps/req.htm | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides | ||||
DECISION ID |
73463 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nineteen of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Nineteen of the available twenty-five 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 exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22482 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 19 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-six water samples water samples were collected from Harding Drain from January 2000 through August 2001. Eleven of the thirty-six water samples had high Reporting Limits and data could not be used in the analysis according to the Listing Policy Section 6.5.1.1, as a consequence, twenty-five water samples were used in the analysis. Nineteen of the available twenty-five 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. 2007a) 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 Harding Drain near Patterson in California. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at irregular intervals between January 2000 and August 2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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 |
72965 |
Region 5 |
Harding Drain |
||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty-three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-three of 23 samples exceed the minimum criterion Water Quality Objectives for Alpha-HCH listed under the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22484 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 23 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | - Twenty-three samples were taken from the Harding Drain between 1992 and 2001. Twenty-three of the twenty-three samples exceed the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria for minimum Alpha-HCH in surface water of <0.0026 g/L. - There were fourteen samples with data that was not usable because they had high Reporting Limits (Lisitng Policy, 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 Harding Drain at Carpenter Road near Patterson in Stanislaus County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between April 1992 and August 2001. Samples were collected at monthly 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): | |||||