Water Body Name: | Duck Slough (Merced County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5357000020080808202452 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
118569 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by action other than TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2026 |
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 4.1 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. Five of the 91 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the 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. Five of the 91 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. A water quality management plan for chlorpyrifos in Duck Slough (Merced County) was approved by the Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. Management practices were implemented by growers to address chlorpyrifos exceedances. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187473 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 34 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 34 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (4 day average)(Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187267 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (4 day average)(Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2011-09-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22038 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-one water samples were collected from Duck Slough between July 2004 and September 2006, representing twenty-one calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations and twenty-one 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations. Three of the twenty-one 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.015 ug/L. Three of the twenty-one 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.025 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality 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 Chlorpyrifos Criteria: 0.015 ug/L as a 4-day average concentration, and 0.025 ug/L as a 1-hour average concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Highway 99 and at Arboleda Drive. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at monthly from July 2004 through September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 132637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 32 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
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. | ||||
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 freshwater criterion continuous concentration [CCC] to protect aquatic organisms from chronic exposure is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (535XDSAGR, 535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126907 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the “ISWEBE Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use, which were adopted on August 7, 2018. Because the salinity level of this waterbody is equal to or less than 1 part per thousand 95 percent or more of the time, the E. coli bacteria objective applies Therefore, this waterbody is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.3 of the Listing Policy using the E. coli objective. A total of three lines of evidence of E. coli data were evaluated for this waterbody. Of these lines of evidence, two are based on historic E. coli data collected prior to 2010. One is based on recent E.coli data, collected since 2010, and compared to the newer E. coli bacteria water quality objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. The two historic lines of evidence were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. The one recent E. coli line of evidence was relied upon to assess water quality standards attainment in this waterbody. The data were collected during 2010 - 2018. There are adequate data to determine beneficial use support in accordance with the Listing Policy. The data are representative of existing conditions in the waterbody and represent a range of hydrologic conditions (both wet and dry years). With respect to the recent line of evidence, 13 of 52 STV for E. coli calculated from 2010 - 2018 exceed the E. coli bacteria objective. For these data, Listing Policy section 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in section 4.2. Using this exceedance frequency, the number of exceedances is not sufficient to remove this waterbody from the list. 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. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 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: | 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. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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: | 194461 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 13 of the 52 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 535XDSAGR | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-09-14 and 2018-09-11 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22056 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 16 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition collected 31 samples from July 2004 to September 2006. Sixteen out of 31 samples exceeded the evaluation objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at two locations: Duck Slough at Gurr Road and Duck Slough at Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from July 2004 to September 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): | 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: | 63274 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 15 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 15 of 52 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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 USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118612 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant for Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) and Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM). Zero of the thirty samples exceed the evaluation criteria for MUN and zero of the seventy-two samples exceed the evaluation criteria for WARM. LOE 63195 has been replaced by LOE 221717 and LOE 221564 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. 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 thirty samples exceed the evaluation criteria for MUN and zero of the seventy-two samples exceed the evaluation criteria for WARM and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221717 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186026 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for aldicarb incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 3 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 185952 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221564 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118613 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186159 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Aldrin. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186060 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Aldrin. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186057 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The established numeric criteria for aldrin to protect aquatic life in freshwater as an instantaneous maximum concentration is 3 ug/L . This established criteria was divided by 2 in order to better represent a CMC value as specified in footnote (g) of Table (b)(1) of the California Toxics Rule, 2000. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118562 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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 for the Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) and Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) beneficial uses. Zero of the fifty-six samples exceed the criteria for WARM and three of the fifty-six samples exceed the objective for MUN. 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 fifty-six samples exceed the evaluation criteria for WARM and three of the fifty-six samples exceed the evaluation criteria for MUN and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63197 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 37 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/21/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186216 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 19 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.010 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2016-08-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186415 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 150 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2016-08-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63196 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 37 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/21/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118563 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Atrazine |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). LOE 63210 has been replaced by LOE 221388 and LOE 221655 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
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: | 63207 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (43 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Atrazine, 43 ug/L, is a an EC50 for Lemna gibba (duckweed); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63208 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the objective (1 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for atrazine is 0.001 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186398 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for atrazine incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.001 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186505 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221388 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221655 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63209 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for atrazine is 1 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118580 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
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: | This pollutant is being 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the protection of freshwater aquatic life WARM. 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 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 zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the protection of freshwater aquatic life WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. Forty samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The National Recommended Water Quality criterion for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186427 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Azinphos Methyl. Although a total of 28 samples were collected, 28 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for azinphos methyl for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.01 ug/l (instantaneous maximum) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118564 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Boron |
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: | This pollutant is being 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 for Agricultural Supply. Zero of the 52 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the guideline for Agricultural Supply. 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 52 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the guideline for Agricultural Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79590 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Boron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial 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: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186548 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Boron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118565 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two LOEs are available for the WARM beneficial use and three LOEs are available for the MUN beneficial use. Zero of the 57 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and zero of the 17 samples exceed the criteria for WARM. 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 57 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and zero of the 17 samples exceed the criteria for WARM and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186699 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186837 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.005 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186698 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.005 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2011-08-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63221 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The cadmium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/16/2008-4/21/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63220 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 37 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for cadmium is 5 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/21/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118566 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl |
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: | This pollutant is being 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 62 samples 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 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 62 samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63222 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187127 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The USEPA recommended water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118567 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 77 samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of 77 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. 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 77 samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of 77 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63230 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 46 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 46 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Carbofuran is 18 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63229 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 46 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 46 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake 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: | The freshwater criterion maximum concentration for carbofuran is 0.5 µg/L (DFG 92-3, 1992). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187138 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The interim water quality criterion for the protection of sensitive aquatic organisms from Carbofuran is 0.5 ug/l (DFG 92-3, 1992). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186926 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Carbofuran incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.018 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118568 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187101 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The Chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Guideline 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 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186913 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00057 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118625 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chloropicrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187343 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloropicrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chloropicrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chloropicrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 5.5 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-06-12 to 2018-06-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118570 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 39 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of 39 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the criteria for WARM, zero of 15 samples reported as a total concentration exceed the aquatic life criteria and zero of 89 samples reported as a total concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN. 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 39 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of 39 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the criteria for WARM and zero of 89 samples reported as a total concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187737 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 1.0 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-04-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187855 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 1.0 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187901 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial 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: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187772 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 1.0 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187923 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 1.0 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63231 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 60 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 60 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for copper is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 4 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Whealan Rd - 535XDSAWH, Duck Slough @ Hwy 59 - 535XDSHFN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63232 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/16/2008-6/15/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118610 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine |
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: | This pollutant is being 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 for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero of the 60 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 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 60 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187849 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyanazine is the EC50 of 4.8 ug/L for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63233 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) for cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118617 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187768 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-03-05 to 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63240 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Twenty-five samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyfluthrin, 0.00005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin, March 2010). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196179 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin, 0.11 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 1.1 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118619 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63241 was replaced by #214899. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 190837 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-03-05 to 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196217 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.044 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 0.44 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 214899 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda. Twenty-five samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118606 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 196253 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 0.3 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63242 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Twenty-five samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cypermethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, or the 1-hour average concentration, 0.001 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188042 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2017-10-10 to 2018-08-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126687 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 188116 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78791 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The DDD method detection limit for all 32 samples collected from Duck Slough (Merced County) are greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
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), for 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) with a limit of 0.00083 ug/L for DDD | ||||
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: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Thirty two water samples were collected from two monitoring sites on Duck Slough (Merced County) [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR; Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN]. Each sample was analyzed for DDD(p,p'). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected at both monitoring sites approximately monthly between 2/12/2007 and 9/18/2007 and between 1/25/2008 and 9/30/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188068 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126688 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 78872 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The DDE method detection limit for all 32 samples collected from Duck Slough (Merced County) are greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
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), for 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) with a limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDE | ||||
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: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Thirty two water samples were collected from two monitoring sites on Duck Slough (Merced County) [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR; Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN]. Each sample was analyzed for DDE(p,p'). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected at both monitoring sites approximately monthly between 2/12/2007 and 9/18/2007 and between 1/25/2008 and 9/30/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188184 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188036 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126756 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63243 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Thirty samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion for total DDT to protect human health from consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188278 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT-4,4' criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188298 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63250 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Thirty samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188296 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118618 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196482 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for deltamethrin, 0.079 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 0.79 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118621 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Demeton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188554 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Demeton, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The USEPA Recommended freshwater eaquatic life criteria for demeton is 0.1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118572 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 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. Zero of the 69 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the WARM beneficial use. 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 69 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the WARM beneficial use and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188489 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 29 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L (4 day average)(Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2018-09-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63251 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 40 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 40 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The freshwater chronic criterion value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118573 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188828 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 28 samples were collected, 28 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118574 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dicofol |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the fifty-one samples exceed the evaluation guideline. LOE 63252 has been replaced by LOE 221479 and LOE 221503 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. 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 fifty-one samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188695 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dicofol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221479 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dicofol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221503 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dicofol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118575 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two LOEs are available for the MUN beneficial use, 2 LOEs are available for the WARM beneficial use and one LOE is available for the Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. Zero of zero samples exceed the criterion to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms for MUN, and zero of 41 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater for WARM, and zero of zero samples exceed the criteria for the Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. 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 zero samples exceed the criterion to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms for MUN, and zero of 41 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater for WARM, and zero of zero samples exceed the criteria for the Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188820 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188897 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188899 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63254 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63253 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Sixteen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion for Dieldrin to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118608 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
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: | Pollution |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the 96 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. 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. Two of the 96 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63261 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 6 samples were below the reporting limit (10 ug/L) but the reporting limit exceeded the evaluation guideline (4.3 ug/L); the samples were not counted in the assessment because they could not be quantified with the certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for dimethoate, 4.3 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 43 ug/L) for Pteronarcys californica (Stonefly); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 81182 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eighteen water samples were collected from three sites on Duck Slough, under the Irrigated Lands Reporting Program, from two sites, between July 2004 and July 2006. None of the 18 water sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline of 4.3 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for dimethoate, 4.3 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 43 ug/L) for Pteronarcys californica (Stonefly); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Arboleda Drive, Gurr Road, and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road on 31 July 2004, and monthly between 17 May 2006 and 13 September 2006. Water samples were collected from Duck Slough at Hughway 99 monthly between 17 May 2006 and 13 September 2006. Water samples were collected from Duck Slough at Arboleda Drive on 20 July 2004, 4 and 18 August 2004, 1 and 15 September 2004, and 1 and 4 February 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826 ) requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221438 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2009-05-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221462 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189186 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118576 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton |
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: | This pollutant is being 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 is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. 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 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 six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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 decision was completed by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189111 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Disulfoton. Although a total of 28 samples were collected, 28 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The evaluation guideline for disulfoton is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.01 ug/L for chronic toxicity in invertebrates (7 day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63263 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality criterion for disulfoton in freshwater (0.05 ug/L) is an aquatic life maximum (instantaneous) level. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118577 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diuron |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Two of the 100 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 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. Two of the 100 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78536 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: one of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Diuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. The acute exposure (4-day average) value for Diuron is 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 3 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR; Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN; Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected between 2/12/2007 and 9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188925 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of diuron does not exceed 1.3 ug/L (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79592 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Diuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial 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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Diuron, 1.3 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
118626 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dodine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189016 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dodine | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dodine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dodine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.95 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-04-09 and 2018-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118578 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Warm Freshwater Habitat. One line of evidence is available to assess for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. Zero of the 41 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 41 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero of the nine samples, reported as a total concentration, exceed the criterion for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. 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 41 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 41 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Warm Freshwater Habitat. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63273 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189580 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63272 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189500 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189578 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118622 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63275 was replaced by #214913. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 25 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. 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 25 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189935 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-06-12 to 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 214913 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 25 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. The evaluation guideline for fenvalerate, 0.113 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 1.13 ug/L) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118620 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189944 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-05-08 and 2018-09-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196446 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 1 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118627 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Flumioxazin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189651 | ||||
Pollutant: | Flumioxazin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Flumioxazin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Flumioxazin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.49 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-11-07 and 2017-11-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118579 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. LOE 63281 has been replaced by LOEs221749 and 221766 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 63282 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (700 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Glyphosate is 700 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190241 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Glyphosate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11900 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190239 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Glyphosate incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.7 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63276 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (5500 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for glyphosate, 5,500 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 55,000 ug/L) for Chironimus plumosus (Midge). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221749 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Glyphosate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11900 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63283 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Glyphosate is 700 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221766 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Glyphosate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11900 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118581 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190632 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190509 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190615 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118582 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190433 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190500 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118616 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190080 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, alpha-. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC) criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms is 0.0039 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190057 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, alpha-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC) criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118615 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190181 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, beta-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190041 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, beta-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118601 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Imidacloprid. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Imidacloprid does not exceed 0.016 ug/L. (UC Davis Water Quality Criteria) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-04-09 to 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118583 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 36 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply in the dissolved fraction and zero of the 23 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply in the total fraction. Zero of five samples exceed the Criteria for Warm Freshwater Habitat in the dissolved fraction and zero of five samples exceed Warm Freshwater Habitat in the unknown fraction. 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 36 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply in the dissolved fraction and zero of the 23 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply in the total fraction. Zero of five samples exceed the Criteria for Warm Freshwater Habitat in the dissolved fraction and zero of five samples exceed Warm Freshwater Habitat in the unknown fraction. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63284 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/16/2008-4/21/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190805 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for use as MUN shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-19 and 2011-09-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190654 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for use as MUN shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2018-03-05 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190653 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for use as MUN shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-19 and 2011-09-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191050 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-19 to 2011-09-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190936 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for use as MUN shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-04-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118584 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190118 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190070 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms only is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190324 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.019 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118585 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Linuron |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63285 has been replaced by LOE 222069 and LOE 222006 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 222006 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Linuron. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 21 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-05-17 to 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Linuron. Although a total of 30 samples were collected, 30 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222069 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Linuron. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 21 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-05-17 to 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118586 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63292 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. Forty samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion, 0.028 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191098 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. Although a total of 34 samples were collected, 32 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2018-03-05 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118607 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methidathion |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. LOE 63293 has been replaced by LOEs 221845 and 222010 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 221845 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191457 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222010 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2009-05-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118602 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. LOE 63294 has been replaced by LOE 221951 and 221972 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 191357 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221972 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221951 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118603 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methomyl |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Zero of the 62 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 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 62 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191318 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The Basin Plan states: \Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide...\" The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl in the San Joaquin River system is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). " | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63295 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl in the San Joaquin River system is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). (CDFG, 1996) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118587 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 41 samples exceed the California Primary MCL for MUN, and 0 of 41 samples exceed the criteria for WARM. 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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 41 samples exceed the California Primary MCL for MUN, and 0 of 41 samples exceed the criteria for WARM and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63304 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Methoxychlor, 30 ug/L, is incorporated by reference into the (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Methoxychlor incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.03 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191447 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for methoxychlor for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.03 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63305 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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 (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 for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118588 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
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: | This pollutant is being 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the water quality objective (California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion) for MUN. 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 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 zero samples exceed the water quality objective (California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion) for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 192949 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Parathion, Methyl. Although a total of 28 samples were collected, 28 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63306 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. Forty samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128755 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Molinate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. LOE 63152 has been replaced by LOE 221848 and 221851 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 63154 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 34 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 34 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Molinate is 20 ug/L . | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63151 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Molinate, 600 ug/L, the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221848 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Wildlife hazard assessment instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for the protection of aquatic life for Molinate is 13 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Rice Herbicides Molinate and Thiobencarb to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. Administrative Report 90-1. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63153 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Molinate is 20 ug/L . | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221851 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Wildlife hazard assessment instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for the protection of aquatic life for Molinate is 13 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Rice Herbicides Molinate and Thiobencarb to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. Administrative Report 90-1. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118589 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Molybdenum |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191860 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molybdenum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Molybdenum. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. A 10 ug/L criteria is the recommended maximum concentration of molybdenum in irrigation water. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118590 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three lines of evidence are available to assess for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. Zero of the 15 samples, reported as a dissolved concentration, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 49 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 15 samples, reported as a dissolved concentration, exceed the criterion for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero of the six samples, with no fraction reported, exceed the criterion for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero of the 15 samples, reported as a dissolved concentration, exceed the criterion for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. Zero of the eleven samples, reported as a total concentration, exceed the criterion for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. 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 49 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191732 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191717 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.1 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2011-11-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191671 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191737 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.1 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191875 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2011-11-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63161 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63162 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/16/2008-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118591 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. One of the 70 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply. 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. One of the 70 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63163 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) is 10.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/16/2008-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192300 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 50 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 50 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 10 mg/L (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). | ||||
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 (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2018-09-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118604 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 63170 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Oryzalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | Based on USEPA IRIS reference dose (RfD) as a drinking water level, the drinking water health advisory level for Oryzalin is 35 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | IRIS Database Calculations (summary) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192464 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin | ||||
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oryzalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 13 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-11-07 and 2017-11-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118592 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) |
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: | This pollutant is being 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Municipal and Domestic Supply. One line of evidence is available to assess for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero of the 62 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 30 samples, reported as a total concentration, exceed the guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 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 62 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 30 samples, reported as a total concentration, exceed the guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitat. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192493 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxamyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Oxamyl incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.05 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79593 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Oxamyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Oxamyl incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins is 50 ug/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin 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: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxamyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The evaluation guideline for oxamyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 27 ug/L for chronic toxicity in invertebrates (7 day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118609 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192407 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxyfluorfen. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oxyfluorfen is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.29 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-11-07 and 2018-06-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
122965 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 3 of the 198 samples exceed the criteria for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 11 of the 67 samples exceed the criteria for Fish Spawning. 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 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. 3 of the 198 samples exceed the criteria for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 11 of the 67 samples exceed the criteria for Fish Spawning. These do 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: | 209027 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as WARM is 5.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 209028 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 58 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 58 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as WARM is 5.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 208513 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 58 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 58 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as SPWN is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63171 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 82 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: Six of 82 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as WARM is 5.0 mg/L. (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 five monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd-535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 59-535XDSHFN, Duck Slough @ Whealan Rd-535XDSAWH, Duck Slough at El Nido Dam-545MRDEDM and Duck Slough @ Hwy 99-535XDSAHN]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected intermittently to monthly between 2/12/2007 and 7/20/2010. Three pairs of samples were collected within 7-day periods; the sample results for each pair were averaged. One triplet of samples was collected within 7-day period; the sample results were averaged. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22039 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 49 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Forty-nine samples were taken from Duck Slough between 2004 and 2006. None of the forty-nine samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road, Highway 99 and Arboleda Drive in Merced County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between July 2004 and September 2006. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 209026 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as SPWN is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118623 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Paraquat |
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: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63172 was replaced by #222088 and #222356. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 192629 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Paraquat. Although a total of 11 samples were collected, 11 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2018-07-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222088 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Paraquat. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 21 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-05-17 to 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222356 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Paraquat. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 21 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-05-17 to 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
130393 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196897 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 8.9 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63173 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Twenty-five samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Permethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192807 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2017-10-10 to 2018-09-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118611 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phorate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. LOE 63177 has been replaced by LOE 222371 and 222373 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 192978 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222371 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222373 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2009-05-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118614 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phosmet |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). LOE 63178 has been replaced by LOE 222318 and LOE 222362 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
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: | 222318 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2009-05-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193192 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222362 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118600 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193165 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2017-10-10 to 2018-09-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 197035 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118594 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Two lines of evidence are available to assess for Warm Freshwater Habitat. Zero of the 44 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 44 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 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 44 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 44 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Warm Freshwater Habitat. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193500 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193334 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for selenium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.05 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63181 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63180 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 30 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for selenium is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118595 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). LOE 63186 has been replaced by LOE 222595 and LOE 222607 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
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: | 222607 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222595 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Simazine incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.004 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193775 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63188 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Simazine is 4 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63187 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Simazine is 4 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63185 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (90 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Simazine, 90 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
126495 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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: | 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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant for Municipal and Domestic Supply. One of the 154 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for the Municipal and Domestic Supply use. 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 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 the 154 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for the Municipal and Domestic Supply use 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: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 229957 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 54 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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 (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 229929 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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 (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63264 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63265 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 84 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 84 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 4 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Whealan Rd - 535XDSAWH, Duck Slough @ Hwy 59 - 535XDSHFN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
122967 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
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: | 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. NUMBER lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Pursuant to section 6.1.5.9 of the Listing Policy, this assessment utilized the upper limit of the optimal temperature range for rainbow trout for growth and completion of most life stages to interpret the narrative water quality objective for temperature. 49 of 89 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD. 26 of 63 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fish Migration and Fish Spawning. However, the available data are insufficient to satisfy the Listing Policy requirements for spatial and temporal representation (sections 6.1.5.2 and 6.1.5.3). The surface water grab samples collected did not provide sufficient temporal and spatial representation to determine if temperature conditions experienced by aquatic life were within the optimal temperature range throughout the entire water column or the length of time temperature conditions may have exceeded the optimal temperature range. Available information for this waterbody-pollutant combination is insufficient to determine whether the aquatic beneficial use is supported. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available for this Integrated Report cycle indicating that standards are not met. However, the exceedances of the evaluation guideline indicate that beneficial uses may be threatened. This decision will be reevaluated in the next Integrated Report cycle as more data and information become available. Additional data and information may include information demonstrating that sample location(s) are representative of conditions throughout the waterbody, data from additional sampling locations, continuous monitoring data collected in the waterbody, waterbody-specific information on sensitive resident species, their life stage time frames, and the appropriate temperature thresholds necessary to support each life stage. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Juoaquin River Basin Plans). | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California (1976) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63189 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 82 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 45 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 45 of 82 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Juoaquin River Basin Plans). | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California (1976) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 4 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Whealan Rd - 535XDSAWH, Duck Slough @ Hwy 59 - 535XDSHFN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230137 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 24 of 54 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230161 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230343 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 24 of 54 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
128756 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. One of the forty-five samples 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 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 the forty-five samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 23 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222541 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_ESJWQC data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-05-17 and 2008-09-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118596 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
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: | 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the 82 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply. 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 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 the 82 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply 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: | 78527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dissolved Solids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The secondary MCL for Total Dissolved Solids is 500 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | none | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79591 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 52 samples exceed the criterion for Dissolved Solids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The secondary MCL for Total Dissolved Solids is 500 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193923 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 24 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Dissolved Solids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for total dissolved solids incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 500 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118597 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194144 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193809 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194075 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 9 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00073 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-18 to 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118598 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of 28 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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 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. A total of zero of 28 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194388 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.9 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2015-08-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118599 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63213 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 39 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for zinc is 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63214 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/16/2008-5/19/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194178 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for zinc incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 5.0 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194196 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194295 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for zinc incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 5.0 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2011-11-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118571 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189465 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189058 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189035 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The alpha-endosulfan criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118593 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189317 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189548 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189547 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The beta-endosulfan criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-18 and 2014-08-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
122966 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six of the 84 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for MUN. Eight of the 63 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for REC-1 and REC-2. Two of the 7 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for WARM. 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 satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of the 84 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for MUN. Eight of the 63 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for REC-1 and REC-2. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Two of the 7 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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 decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228659 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 8 of 54 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
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 (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79594 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 84 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 84 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
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 for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Whealan Rd - 535XDSAWH, Duck Slough @ Hwy 59 - 535XDSHFN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78537 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
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 for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | none | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228658 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
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 (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228577 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 8 of 54 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
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 (535XDSAGR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-10-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228588 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
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 (535XDSAHN) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2012-02-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118605 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2030 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The evidence indicates that pyrethroid concentrations in Duck Slough (Merced County) are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but other pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates this water segment-pollutant combination is not meeting standards, but 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 listing is being addressed through the implementation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Regulatory requirements are specified in WDRs for Growers within the Eastside San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third-Party Group (Order R5-2012-0116-R2) and in WDRs General Order for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the Central Valley Region for Dischargers not Participating in a Third-party Group (Order R5-2013-0100). The WDRs include a time schedule, milestones and a monitoring and reporting program. The WDRs require growers to develop and implement water quality management plans iteratively to attain water quality objectives as soon as possible, but no later than ten years from the identification of water quality exceedances. A management plan for pyrethroids in this water body was developed in 2020 and is being implemented and monitoring is ongoing. Agricultural management practices being used to reduce offsite movement of pyrethroids into surface water include alternative irrigation practices, sediment and erosion practices, and pesticide application practices. Pyrethroid criteria are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of management practices. This pollutant is being 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. Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #22066 was replaced by #95240. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the three water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Additionally, one of one sediment sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for WARM. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA section 303(d) List because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. This listing is being addressed through the implementation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Regulatory requirements are specified in WDRs for Growers within the Westside San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third-Party Group (Order R5-2012-0116-R2) and in WDRs General Order for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the Central Valley Region for Dischargers not Participating in a Third-party Group (Order R5-2013-0100). The WDRs include a time schedule, milestones and a monitoring and reporting program. The WDRs require growers to develop and implement water quality management plans iteratively to attain water quality objectives as soon as possible, but no later than ten years from the identification of water quality exceedances. A management plan for pyrethroids in Duck Slough (Merced County) was developed in 2020 and is being implemented and monitoring is ongoing. Agricultural management practices being used to reduce offsite movement of pyrethroids into surface water include alternative irrigation practices, sediment and erosion practices, and pesticide application practices. Pyrethroid criteria are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of management practices. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | This pollutant is being 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. Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #22066 was replaced by #95240. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the three water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Additionally, one of one sediment sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for WARM. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA section 303(d) List because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. This listing is being addressed through the implementation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Regulatory requirements are specified in WDRs for Growers within the Westside San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third-Party Group (Order R5-2012-0116-R2) and in WDRs General Order for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the Central Valley Region for Dischargers not Participating in a Third-party Group (Order R5-2013-0100). The WDRs include a time schedule, milestones and a monitoring and reporting program. The WDRs require growers to develop and implement water quality management plans iteratively to attain water quality objectives as soon as possible, but no later than ten years from the identification of water quality exceedances. A management plan for pyrethroids in Duck Slough (Merced County) was developed in 2020 and is being implemented and monitoring is ongoing. Agricultural management practices being used to reduce offsite movement of pyrethroids into surface water include alternative irrigation practices, sediment and erosion practices, and pesticide application practices. Pyrethroid criteria are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of management practices. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not 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: | 195918 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin 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 evaluation guideline for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 0.43 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 535XDSAGR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-09-10 to 2013-09-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186703 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The chronic concentration goal for Bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (535XDSAGR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-05-08 to 2018-08-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 95240 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 23 water samples were collected from Duck Slough from July 2004 through September 2006 representing 22 concentrations. 1 of 1 concentrations exceeded the maximum value (0.0006 ug/L). 22 samples had concentrations less than the quantitative limits and the quantitative limit is greater than the water quality criterion concentration. Therefore, these samples were not used in this analysis in accordance with section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Bifenthrin, 0.0006 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road, Arboleda Drive, and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at various intervals (monthly) from July 2004 through September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63218 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-six samples were collected and analyzed for Bifenthrin. The reporting level for all 26 samples is greater than the evaluation guideline value. Therefore, none of the samples were evaluated for exceedances; i.e., 0 samples, 0 exceedances. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Bifenthrin, 0.0006 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
74167 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Nineteen of the 190 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in water and 11 of 29 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in sediment. 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. Nineteen of the 190 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in water and 11 of 29 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in sediment. This exceeds 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: | 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: | 22041 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 37 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2004 - September 2006 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22042 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of 37 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Gurr Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:24 September 2004 (74)One sample collected at Hwy 99 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:12 July 2005 (77)Four samples collected at Arboledo Drive exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:20 July 2004 (86)4 August 2004 (60)18 August 2004 (79)15 September 2004 (62) | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road, Hwy 99 and Arboledo Drive. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2004 to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22048 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the 10 samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Three samples collected at Gurr Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:31 August 2004 (36)12 July 2005 (65)20 September 2005 (4) | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road, Hwy 99 and Arboleda Drive. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2004 to August 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63212 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 76 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventy-six samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Nine of the samples exhibited significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (4 samples) and Selenastrum capricornutum (5 samples). The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival of Pimephales promelas, and total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan. | ||||
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: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. This data set reports a simple pass/fail (Yes/NO) code to report toxicity that is equivalent to the SWAMP SL code. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Duck Slough at Gurr Rd, Duck Slough at Hwy 59 and Duck Slough at Hwy 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from July 2004 to September 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected under the Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59140 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nineteen samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Eight of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan. | ||||
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: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at Duck Slough at Gurr Rd and Duck Slough at Hwy 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from August 2005 to September 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected under the Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22047 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 40 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 4 of the 40 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Three samples collected at Gurr Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:28 February 2006 (37)10 March 2006 (35)15 March 2006 (42)One sample collected at Highway 99 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:17 May 2006 (0) | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road and Highway 99. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2004 to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92369 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Alachlor |
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 3.1 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. Zero of six samples exceed the California Primary MCL for MUN, and 0 of 6 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. 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 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 six samples exceed the California Primary MCL for MUN, and 0 of 6 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63193 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline value of 1.64 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Alachlor, 1.64 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63194 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the objective (2 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for alachlor is 2 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
93301 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, one 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 52 water sample results exceed calculated acute, 1-hour-average total ammonia criterion for warm freshwater where salmonid fish are present. 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 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 52 water sample results exceed calculated acute, 1-hour-average total ammonia criterion for warm freshwater where salmonid fish are present, and this sample size is sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.1 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 this water body and pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 78966 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifty-two water samples were collected from Duck Slough (Merced County) results and none of the samples had ammonia levels above the calculated CMC value. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
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. | ||||
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: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at two monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR and Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSHFN]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Ammonia, pH and temperature data was collected intermittently between 2/12/2007 and 7/20/2010 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data collected under the QAPP for the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
87501 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Bromacil |
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. Zero of the six samples 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 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 six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63219 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromacil | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (45 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The EC50 for bromacil for Lemna gibba (duckweed) is 45 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92163 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor |
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 3.1 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. Zero of six samples exceed the water quality objective (National Ambient Water Quality criterion for Human Health and Welfare Protection of Public Health Effects, other than cancer effects from Water & Fish Consumption) for MUN, and 0 of 6 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. 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 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 six samples exceed the water quality objective (National Ambient Water Quality criterion for Human Health and Welfare Protection of Public Health Effects, other than cancer effects from Water & Fish Consumption) for MUN, and 0 of 6 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63307 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (100 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Metolachlor, 10 ug/L, is an EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63308 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Metolachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The National Ambient Water Quality criterion for Human Health and Welfare Protection of Public Health Effects (other than cancer effects) from Water & Fish Consumption for metolachlor is 44 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87716 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Metribuzin |
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. Zero of the six samples 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 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 six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63150 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metribuzin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (8.09 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Metribuzin, 8.09 ug/L, is an EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87772 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate |
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 3.1 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. Zero of the thirty-two samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 thirty-two samples exceed the water quality 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: | 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: | 63164 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate (NO3 as N) is 10.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
92945 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
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 3.1 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. Zero of 32 samples exceed the California Primary MCL for MUN. 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 32 samples exceed the California Primary MCL for MUN and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63165 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 32 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrite (as N) is 1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN, Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
DECISION ID |
92946 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Norflurazon |
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 3.1 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for MUN. 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 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 six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63166 | ||||
Pollutant: | Norflurazon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Norflurazon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | Based on USEPA IRIS reference dose (RfD) as a drinking water level, the drinking water health advisory level for norflurazon is 280 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | IRIS Database Calculations (summary) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87636 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Prodiamine |
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. Zero of the two samples 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 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 two samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63179 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prodiamine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 2 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 2 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (17 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Prodiamine, 17 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/30/2008-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75400 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Salinity |
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 3.2 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. 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 54 samples exceeded the water quality objectives for electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids (collectively ¿salinity¿) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 22045 | ||||
Pollutant: | Salinity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-one samples were taken from Duck Slough between 2004 and 2006. None of the thirty-one samples exceed the California Secondary MCL for Municipal Water Quality Objectives for electrical conductivity in surface water. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL recommended level of 900 uS/cm. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007a).The secondary MCL's for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The 'recommended' concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses. Though individual listing evaluations did not look at the water supply source serving the given geographic area, there are certain areas that receive supply waters (such as the Delta Mendota Canal) that at times may be elevated above the recommended level of the secondary MCL. Where future information is made available to document this to be the case, these water bodies may be re-evaluated in future listing cycles. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Arboleda Road, Gurr Road and Highway 99 in Merced County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between July 2004 and September 2006. Samples were collected at monthly intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22046 | ||||
Pollutant: | Salinity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-three samples were taken from Duck Slough between 2004 and 2006. One of the twenty-three samples exceeds the California Secondary MCL for Municipal Water Quality Objectives for total dissolved solids in surface water. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL recommended level of 500 mg/L. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007a).The secondary MCL's for TDS provide a range of values including a recommended level (500 mg/L), upper level (1000 mg/L) and a short-term level (1500 mg/L). The 'recommended' concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses. Though individual listing evaluations did not look at the water supply source serving the given geographic area, there are certain areas that receive supply waters (such as the Delta Mendota Canal) that at times may be elevated above the recommended level of the secondary MCL. Where future information is made available to document this to be the case, these water bodies may be re-evaluated in future listing cycles. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Arboleda Drive, Gurr Road and Highway 99 in Merced County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between July 2004 and September 2006. Samples were collected at monthly intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75833 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of 56 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life for WARM, and 0 of 41 water sample results exceed the water quality objective for MUN. 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 56 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life for WARM, and 0 of 41 water sample results exceed the water quality objective for MUN and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 63202 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 35 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 35 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of Thiobencarb in excess of 1.0 µg/L. (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 for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22055 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 15 water samples were collected from Duck Slough from July 2004 through September 2006, representing 15 concentrations. 0 of 15 concentrations exceeded Secondary MCL concentration of 1 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Secondary Maximum Contaminate Levels (MCLs) for drinking water standard adopted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is 1 ug/L (CDPH, 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Slough at Gurr Road, Highway 99, and Arboleda Drive. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at monthly interval from July 2004 through September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63200 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 35 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 35 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Slough @ Gurr Rd - 535XDSAGR, Duck Slough @ Hwy 99 - 535XDSAHN] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-9/30/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63199 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (1.4 ug/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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. (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: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., 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... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63201 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Slough (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of Thiobencarb in excess of 1.0 µg/L. (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 for Duck Slough (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Slough at El Nido Dam - 545MRDEDM] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/1/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75584 |
Region 5 |
Duck Slough (Merced County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH (high) |
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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 49 samples had pH values higher than the pH objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board 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: | 22040 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 49 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition collected 49 samples from July 2004 to September 2006. Three of the 49 samples did not meet the evaluation objective and had a pH higher than 8.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH. Measurement of pH within the range of 6.5 and 8.5. A high pH value is greater than 8.5 | ||||
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 Duck Slough at three locations: Gurr Road, Highway 99, and Arboleda Drive. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from July 2004 to September 2006 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||