Water Body Name: | Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5314000020080803214539 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
126906 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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, as applicable, using the E. Coli 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. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. 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. Four lines of evidence are available based on the new E. coli objective. There are an insufficient number of samples available to apply the binomial distribution table in section 4.2 of the Listing Policy to determine beneficial use support. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient 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. There are insufficient samples available to determine listing status using the newly adopted E. coli objective. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 22054 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 13 samples from January 2003 to January 2004. Three out of 13 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 Duck Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from January 2003 to January 2004. | ||||
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: | 194431 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 12 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): 531XDCAHF | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62947 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22053 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Coalition collected 7 samples from August 2004 to September 2006. Two out of the 7 samples collected exceeded the evaluation 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. 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 Duck Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred in August and September of 2004 and monthly sampling occurred May 2006 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 |
118517 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2026 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This water body segment-pollutant combination is being addressed through Basin Plan requirements established under CRWQCB-CVR resolution R5-20140041, and implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural discharges. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The Basin Plan identifies numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are achieved. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This water body - pollutant combination is being considered for removal from the 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.11, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The evidence indicates that chlorpyrifos concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but existing pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards because the impairment is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seventeen of 76 samples exceed the aquatic life criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this water body segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers, who are regulated under enforceable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 5. In 2016, the Board adopted Resolution R5-2014-0041 establishing Basin Plan amendments that primarily address the regulation of agricultural pesticide runoff and discharges of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Central Valley which are implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural dischargers. The amendments established numeric water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos and a control program to ensure that the objectives will be attained within a reasonable, specified time frame. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 6. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. 7. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 8. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, 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: | The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 6. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. 7. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 8. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22058 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water samples were collected from Duck Creek from August 2004 through September 2006, representing four calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations and four 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations. Two of the four 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.015 ug/L. Two of the four 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.025 ug/L. Three samples were not used in this analysis because their associated quantitation limits (0.0256 ug/L) were greater than the water quality guideline values. | ||||
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 chlorpyrifos concentration, and 0.025 ug/L as a 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at once each in August and September 2004, and monthly between May and 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: | 195959 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos. 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 chlorpyrifos, 0.177 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 1.77 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187576 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 52 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2018-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63141 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms 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 (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF, Duck Creek @ Drais Rd - 531XDCADR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/15/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118552 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD). Zero of the thirty-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for MUN and zero of the thirty-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. LOE 63093 has been replaced by LOE 221515 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-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for MUN and zero of the thirty-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD 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: | 185866 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63094 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Department of Public Health archived advisory level for aldicarb is 7 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | CDPH Archived Advisory Levels for Drinking Water. Archived Advisory Levels are currently considered Notification Levels. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 185861 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221515 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
122964 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
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: | 207388 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 levels were assessed for the protection of freshwater aquatic life by comparison to the Evaluation Guideline value of 20,000 ug/L (4 day average)(National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
118510 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 28 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of the twelve samples exceed the crieria for WARM, and zero of the 16 samples exceed the criteria for COLD. 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. NUMBER of NUMBER samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/CRITERIA and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 186393 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63109 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 20900 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the USEPA Primary MCL of 10 ug/L for total arsenic | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total arsenic levels must not exceed the USEPA Primary MCL of 10 ug/L | ||||
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 Creek at Highway 4 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between March 18, 2003 and June 30, 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 8777 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Total Arsenic levels should not exceed 340 ug/L maximum concentration for 1-hour average (CTR) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Duck Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Mar 18 2003 to Jun 30 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63110 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186327 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118511 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 63111 has been replaced by LOE 221390 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: | 63122 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186245 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186336 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221390 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118527 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 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 zero 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 zero 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: | 186294 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63123 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
131726 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
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: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. One line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. One of one benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. However, a minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples are needed to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment 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 one benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. The available information is insufficient to determine whether the waterbody/pollutant combination should be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 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: | |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 232134 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 531PS0573 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.433116656 to 0.433116656. | ||||
Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2020 Integrated Report for Region 5. | ||||
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. 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. Â | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 531PS0573. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 6/28/2012 to 6/28/2012. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data collected following SWAMP QA protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
118546 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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: | 63127 | ||||
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: | Fifteen samples were collected and analyzed for Bifenthrin. The reporting limit is greater than the evaluation guideline value for all 15 samples; therefore, the data could not be evaluated for exceedances. Therefore, 0 samples, 0 exceedances. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 195909 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-03-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118512 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 4 available concentrations exceeded the MUN water quality objective and that 0 of 12 available concentrations exceeded the AGR objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 4 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 186587 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 20904 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective of 1,000 ug/L for boron | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Boron levels should not exceed 1,000 ug/L (Department of Health Services Health Advisory) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Drinking Water Notification and Response Levels: An Overview | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between March 18, 2003 and June 30, 2003 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
118513 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63136 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63137 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186614 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186717 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186818 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118514 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life. 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 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life 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: | 63138 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187111 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118515 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 33 samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life. 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 33 samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life. 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: | 63140 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63139 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187155 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186924 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118516 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 4 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 187261 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for chloride incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 250 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 20909 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Chloride levels should not exceed 250 mg/L (Department of Public Health Secondary MCL). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Duck Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from March 18 2003 to June 30 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
118518 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 3.11 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. Zero of 24 samples reported as a total concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of 12 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of the six samples exceed the water column criteria for WARM and zero of 12 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the criteria for COLD. 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 24 samples reported as a total concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of 12 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the water quality objective for MUN, zero of the six samples exceed the water column criteria for WARM and zero of 12 samples reported as a dissolved concentration exceed the criteria for COLD 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: | 187672 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62910 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62909 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187878 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187713 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118550 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 aquatic life. Zero of the 33 samples exceed the guideline for aquatic life. 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 33 samples exceed the guideline for aquatic life 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: | 62911 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187891 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118554 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 zero 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 zero 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: | 196244 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 2 samples were collected, 2 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62912 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Fifteen 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118556 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 zero 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 zero 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: | 196184 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda-. 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 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-03-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62913 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda. Fifteen 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Cyhalothrin, 0.0005 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118547 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 62918 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Fifteen 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196218 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126685 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
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: | 188172 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188138 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126686 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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: | 188250 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188017 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
126755 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
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: | 188565 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188317 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188397 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 0.005 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118555 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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: | 196449 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118558 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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: | 188572 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for demeton for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.1 ug/l (4 day average) | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118519 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. There is one LOE available for the COLD beneficial use and one LOE available for the WARM beneficial use. One of the 39 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life. 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 39 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life 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: | 62919 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188511 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118520 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 188710 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118521 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant using the Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) beneficial use. Zero of the thirty-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. LOE 62920 has been replaced by LOE 221704 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-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD 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: | 188716 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221704 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118522 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. Zero of the 33 samples exceed the water quality criteria for aquatic life. 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 33 samples exceed the water quality criteria for aquatic life 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: | 188958 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188956 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188978 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62922 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62921 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118549 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 #62392 was replaced by #221713. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the 33samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. 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 33samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD 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: | 189145 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221713 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118523 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 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 the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for COLD. 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 for WARM. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for COLD. 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: | This decision was completed by SWRCB staff. |
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: | 188965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62933 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118524 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diuron |
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: | 189158 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118525 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 aquatic life. One line of evidence is available to assess for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. Zero of the 33 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 33 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for aquatic life. Zero of the 12 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 33 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 33 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for aquatic life. 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: | 62935 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62936 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189457 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189277 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189560 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118559 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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: | 196505 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total. 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 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 esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50; 1.5 ug/g) and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118557 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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: | 196507 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin. 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 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118526 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 62948 has been replaced by LOE 221940 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: | 62949 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221940 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190264 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189963 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118529 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 62968 has been replaced by LOE 221922 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: | 191016 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 221922 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2007-02-11 to 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118530 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of the zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. 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 the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of the zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. 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: | 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: | 62923 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191040 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Malathion. Although a total of 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118548 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 62924 has been replaced by LOE 221802 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: | 221802 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191478 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118544 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 62925 has been replaced by LOE 222015 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: | 222015 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191334 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118545 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life. 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 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for aquatic life 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: | 62926 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191606 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118531 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 33 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and 0 of 33 samples exceed the aquatic life criteria. 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 33 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and 0 of 33 samples exceed the aquatic life criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 191613 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62938 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62937 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191468 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118532 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 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 zero 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 zero 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: | 62939 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192883 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 12 samples were collected, 12 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
128753 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 62940 and 62941 has been replaced by LOE 222100 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: | 222100 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 ILRP_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2008-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118533 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 191639 | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118534 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Two lines of evidence are available for aquatic life. Two lines of evidence are available for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. Zero of the 12 samples, reported as a dissolved concentration, exceed the objective for Municipal or Domestic Supply. Zero of the 24 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceed the objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. Zero of the 12 samples, reported as a dissolved concentration, exceed the criterion for aquatic life. Zero of the six samples, with the fraction not reported, exceed the criterion for aquatic life. Zero of the 12 samples, reported as a dissolved concentration, exceed the criterion for Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. Zero of the 12 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 24 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: | 191821 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191626 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191777 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191871 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191649 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62942 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62953 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118535 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 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. Zero of the 18 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: | 62954 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192002 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192334 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
118536 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) |
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: | 192620 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192599 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118560 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 #62957 was replaced by #222287. 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: | 222287 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2007-02-11 to 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 (531XDCAHF). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2012-01-17 to 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
130392 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62958 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Fifteen 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 196779 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 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): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118551 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 62969 has been replaced by LOE 222215 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: | 193000 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222215 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118553 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. 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 thirty-three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. LOE 62970 has been replaced by LOE 222274 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. NUMBER of NUMBER samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/CRITERIA and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 222274 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193319 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118543 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 197059 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 2 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. Individual pyrethroid concentrations in sediment were normalized to organic carbon content, divided by the respective 1/10 LC50 and then summed. A sum over over one toxic unit is an exceedance of the evaluation guideline (Amweg et al. 2006). | ||||
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: | Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of freshwater OC-normalized sediment toxicity data for pyrethroids | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 531XDCAHF. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2012-03-15 to 2012-09-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118537 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62971 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193352 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-11-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193426 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-11-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62972 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118538 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 62973 has been replaced by LOE 222447 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: | 62987 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193779 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193508 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222447 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
126494 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. Zero of the 99 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. Zero of the 99 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: | 211461 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62934 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 37 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF, Duck Creek @ Drais Rd - 531XDCADR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/15/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 20449 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 13 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the "recommended" Secondary MCL of 900 uS/cm for electrical conductivity | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The secondary MCLs 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¿ level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses | ||||
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 Creek at Highway 4 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between January 21, 2003 and January 7, 2004 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230060 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118539 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
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: | 193520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for sulfate incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 250 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
122963 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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. 7 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. 41 of 88 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD. 24 of 49 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: | 212838 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62988 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 17 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 17 of 39 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF, Duck Creek @ Drais Rd - 531XDCADR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-7/13/2010. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 212727 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230391 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 23 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 23 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230388 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 23 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 23 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230389 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 23 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 23 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 212667 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
128754 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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: | 222439 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 ILRP_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2008-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118540 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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: | 193851 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118541 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin |
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 63008 has been replaced by LOE 222498 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: | 194291 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222498 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 ILRP_SJCDWQC data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-10-14 and 2009-03-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118542 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 194264 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194173 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194193 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-11-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63010 | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin 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 San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63009 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/15/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
131134 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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 3.2 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. Zero of the 48 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for COLD, REC-1, and REC-2. 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 the 48 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for COLD, REC-1, and REC-2, 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: | 228963 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228629 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228842 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
DECISION ID |
118528 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | 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 |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
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 of the 12 samples exceed the Criteria for Cold Freshwater Habitat in the dissolved fraction. Zero of the nine samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply in the dissolved fraction. Zero of the six samples exceed the Criteria for Freshwater Habitat in the unspecified fraction. Zero of the 11 samples exceed the objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply in the total fraction. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Two of the 12 samples exceed the Criteria for Cold Freshwater Habitat in the dissolved fraction and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190974 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 12 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: | 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190977 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-01-17 and 2012-11-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190954 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
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 San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-02-14 and 2012-12-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
122961 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | 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 |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
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. 39 of the 58 samples exceed the objective for Aquatic Life. 38 of the 49 samples exceed the objective for Fish Spawning. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 39 of the 58 samples exceed the objective for Aquatic Life. 38 of the 49 samples exceed the objective for Fish Spawning. These 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 be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22059 | ||||
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: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were taken from Duck Creek between 2004 and 2006. One of the six samples falls below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Duck Creek at Highway 4 in San Joaquin County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between August 2004 and August 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: | 22060 | ||||
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: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen samples were taken from Duck Creek between 2003 and 2004. None of the thirteen samples exceeds Water Quality Objectives for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water. | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (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 Creek in San Joaquin County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between January 2003 and January 2004. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 208457 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 37 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 37 of 48 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 208733 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 208390 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 37 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 37 of 48 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 COLD 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 (531XDCAHF) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-07 and 2016-10-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) ., Prepared by Michael L. Johnson LLC for the Irrigated Lands Program. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) ., Michael L. Johnson LLC. 2015. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring By the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 208456 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD 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 (531PS0573) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-28 and 2012-06-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
88833 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
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 the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 63096 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater for aldrin is 1.5 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63095 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The CTR objective for aldrin to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00013 ug/L. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
71882 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium (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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 4 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 4 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 20876 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium (total) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Chromium levels should not exceed 50 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Duck Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from March 18 2003 to June 30 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89165 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
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 the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 62951 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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: | 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62950 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The CTR objective for Heptachlor to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00021 ug/L. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89166 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
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 the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 62952 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The CTR objective for Heptachlor epoxide to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0001 ug/L. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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: | 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89167 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 62966 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for HCH, gamma (Lindane) is 0.2 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62967 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-HCH (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85799 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 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 seven 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. Zero of the seven samples exceed the water quality objective 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: | 62955 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/12/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89428 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 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 seven samples exceed the water quality criteria. 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 seven samples exceed the water quality criteria 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: | 62956 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/12/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88526 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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 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 fifteen samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and zero of the fifteen 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 the fifteen samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and zero of the fifteen 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 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: | 62990 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-9/16/2008. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88527 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
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 the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 62992 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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: | 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 62991 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criterion 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: | 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88991 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 63108 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 0.056 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63107 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms is 110 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88834 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria. 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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: | 63106 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, alpha criterion, 0.0039 ug/L, is for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms. (California Toxics Rule, 2002) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88995 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 water quality criteria. 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 water quality criteria 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: | 63124 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, beta criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2002). | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88996 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin 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: | 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 the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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: | 63126 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
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 0.056 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63125 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
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 Creek (San Joaquin County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The beta-endosulfan criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms is 110 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 Creek (San Joaquin County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 - 531XDCAHF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/14/2008-3/10/2009. | ||||
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): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
75629 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH (low) |
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 21 samples exceed the water quality objective for pH in the Basin Plan 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. Two of 21 samples exceed the water quality objective for pH in the Basin Plan for WARM 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: | 22062 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Coalition collected 8 samples from August 2004 to September 2006. Two of the 8 samples did not meet the evaluation objective and had a pH lower than 6.5. | ||||
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 low pH value is below 6.5. | ||||
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 Creek at Highway 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from August 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22063 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 13 samples from January 2003 - January 2004. None of the 13 samples had a pH value lower than 6.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH. Measurement of pH within the range of 6.5 and 8.5. A low pH value is below 6.5. | ||||
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 Creek at Highway 4 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from January 2003 - January 2004 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
72007 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
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. Fifteen of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fifteen of 24 samples exceed the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26102 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 15 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen of the 24 water samples collected from Duck Creek for the City of Stockton NPDES Municial Stormwater Program, exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for mercury of 0.050 ug/L (50 ng/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin | ||||
City of Stockton NPDES Municipal Stormwater Program Report of Waste Discharge | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
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 (CTR) numeric criterion for the protection of human health for the consumption of both water and fish that live in the water is 50 ng/l (30-day average) for total recoverable mercury (40 CFR 131.38). | ||||
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: | Water samples were collected from Duck Creek Detention Basin Influent 1 - 555 Zephyr Drive, Stockton. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected from Duck Creek between December 2003 and June 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Analysis done by labs with approved QAQC programs, in accordance with stormwater permit requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75470 |
Region 5 |
Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
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. Eight of 42 water samples exhibited significant toxicity. One of six sediment samples exhibited significant toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Eight of 42 water samples exhibited significant toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 131331 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 3 of the 9 samples collected by San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition for Duck Creek (San Joaquin County) exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
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. | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 531XDCAHF ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2015-09-15. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 2.0) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Revision 3.0) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59225 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. One 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
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 Creek at Hwy 4. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from September 2004 and to September 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidelines For Order NO. R5-2009-0875 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring And Reporting Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||