| Water Body Name: | Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5312000020080803152639 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
128923 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 LOE 62842 has been replaced by LOE 221407 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark.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: | 221407 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62848 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128902 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 62870 has been replaced by LOE 221420 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: | 221420 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62871 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for atrazine is 1 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128911 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Bromacil |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 62889 has been replaced by LOE 221491 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 221491 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bromacil | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bromacil. | ||||
| 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 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 Bromacil is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6.8 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128903 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Dacthal |
| 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 79450 has been replaced by LOE 221582 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: | 221582 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dacthal. | ||||
| 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 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 Dacthal is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of >1100 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) and vascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a \greater-than\" value (for example, > 265,000) and may overestimate toxicity." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-04-17 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128904 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 XX has been replaced by LOE XX 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: | 221617 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dicofol. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128917 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #62767 was replaced by #221575. 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: | 221575 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128920 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Ethoprop |
| 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 62790 has been replaced by LOE 222045 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: | 222045 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. | ||||
| 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 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 Ethoprop 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128905 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 62791 has been replaced by LOEs 221858 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: | 221858 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
| 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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Glyphosate. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62792 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Glyphosate is 700 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128906 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 63014 has been replaced by LOE 221751 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: | 221751 | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 6 samples were collected, 6 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 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 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 (511XDCGLT). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2007-02-11 to 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128915 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 63026 has been replaced by LOE 222056 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: | 222056 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128912 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 63027 has been replaced by LOE 221740 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: | 221740 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128907 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Molinate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 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 one samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. LOE 63042 has been replaced by LOE 222103 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. 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 one samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD 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: | 63043 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Molinate is 20 ug/L . | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/15/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 222103 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
| 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 ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Molinate. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-05-15 and 2007-05-15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128913 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oryzalin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63068 was replaced by #222151. 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: | 222151 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oryzalin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oryzalin. | ||||
| 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 which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 13 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128918 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen |
| 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 63069 has been replaced by LOE 222222 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: | 222222 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen | ||||
| 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 ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxyfluorfen. | ||||
| 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 which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oxyfluorfen is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.29 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-05-15 and 2007-05-15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128921 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Pendimethalin |
| 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 one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD. LOE 63082 has been replaced by LOE 222091 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 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 one sample exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 222091 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pendimethalin | ||||
| 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 ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pendimethalin. | ||||
| 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 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 Pendimethalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 5.2 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-05-15 and 2007-05-15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128922 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 63083 has been replaced by LOE 222241 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: | 222241 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128924 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 63084 has been replaced by LOE 222339 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 222339 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128908 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) |
| 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 63085 has been replaced by LOE 222115 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: | 222115 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prometon. | ||||
| 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 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 Prometon (Prometone) is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 98 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128916 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Prometryn |
| 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 63097 has been replaced by LOE 222210 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: | 222210 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prometryn. | ||||
| 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 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 Prometryn is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.04 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128919 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Propargite |
| 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 one samples exceed the evaluation guideline. LOE 63098 has been replaced by LOE 222320 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 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 one 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: | 222320 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Propargite | ||||
| 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 ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Propargite. | ||||
| 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 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 Propargite is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 7 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-05-15 and 2007-05-15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128925 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Propazine |
| 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 63099 has been replaced by LOE 222387 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: | 222387 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Propazine | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Propazine. | ||||
| 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 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 Propazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 24.8 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128909 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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 63115 has been replaced by LOE 222433 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: | 63116 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Simazine is 4 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 222433 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128914 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Tebuthiuron |
| 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 63128 has been replaced by LOE 222503 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 222503 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Tebuthiuron | ||||
| 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_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Tebuthiuron. | ||||
| 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 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 Tebuthiuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 50 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-02-11 and 2007-12-20 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128926 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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: | 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: | 222466 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
| 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 ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiobencarb. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-05-15 and 2007-05-15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128910 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 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 one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD. LOE 62914 has been replaced by LOE 222546 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 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 one sample exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 222546 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
| 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 ILRP_SVWQC data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. | ||||
| 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 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 (511XDCGLT) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2007-05-15 and 2007-05-15 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100128 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater (CTR, 2000) for COLD, and zero of zero samples exceed the criterion to protect human health from consumption of water and organisms (CTR, 2000) for COMM, and zero of zero samples exceed the CTR objective to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceed the criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater (CTR, 2000) for COLD, and zero of zero samples exceed the criterion to protect human health from consumption of water and organisms (CTR, 2000) for COMM, and zero of zero samples exceed the CTR objective to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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: | 62850 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion to protect human health from consumption of water and organisms for aldrin is 0.00014 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62849 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62851 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100084 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum |
| 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 are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of two samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 two samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of two samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79448 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: 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. | ||||
| 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 Critiera for the protection of aquatic life is the chronic continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) of 87 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62862 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for aluminum is 0.2 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83503 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78990 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life 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: | Six water samples collected by the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition from Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) were analyzed for ammonia, pH and temperature. None of the six ammonia results exceeded the calculated ammonia CMC values. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants for Goose Lake Coalition, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | |||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at one monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Ammonia, pH and temperature data were collected intermittently between 2/11/2007 and 12/20/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected under the QAPP for the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100085 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 section3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criterion for COLD and one of six samples exceed the criterion for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceed the criterion for COLD and one of six samples exceed the criterionfor MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62869 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62863 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88858 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 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: | 62872 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality criterion for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88938 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Benomyl |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62873 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benomyl | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | The data was assessed using the CDFW-derived aquatic life criterion for Benomyl of 8.8 µg/L (1-hour average); 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Benomyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Wildlife instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for Benomyl is 8.8 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Fungicides Benomyl, Captan, Chlorothalonil, Maneb, and Ziram to Aquatic Organisms | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83189 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for AGR. 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 six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for AGR and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79449 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Boron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | |||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
83244 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN and zero of six 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 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 six samples exceeded the water quality objective for MUN and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62891 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The cadmium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62890 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for cadmium is 5 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83295 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 six 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62892 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88940 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 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. 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 evaluation guideline for COLD 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: | 62893 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62899 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Carbofuran is 18 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83350 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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 six 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62900 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83407 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| 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 three 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 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 three samples exceed the criteria for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62901 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83460 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criteria for MUN and zero of six 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 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 six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62902 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for copper is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62903 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89017 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62748 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) for cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89019 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 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 zero 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: | 78774 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The DDD method detection limit for all twelve samples collected from Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) are greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000), for Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) with a limit of 0.00083 ug/L for DDD | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Six water samples were collected from one monitoring site on Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road
- 511XDCGLT]. Each water sample was analyzed for DDD(o,p') and DDD(p,p') (a total of twelve sample results). |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected intermittently on six dates between 2/11/2007 and 12/20/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
83518 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 zero samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78870 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The DDE method detection limit for all twelve samples collected from Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) are greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000), for Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) with a limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDE | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Six water samples were collected from one monitoring site on Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road
- 511XDCGLT]. Each water sample was analyzed for DDE(o,p') and DDE(p,p') (a total of twelve sample results). |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected intermittently on six dates between 2/11/2007 and 12/20/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89020 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 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. Zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD 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: | 62750 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: The reporting limit is greater than the criterion and, therefore, the sample results could not be assessed. 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62749 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: The reporting limit is greater than the criterion and, therefore, the sample results could not be assessed. 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion for total DDT to protect human health from consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89100 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Demeton |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62751 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Recommended Water Aquatic Life criterion continuous concentration for demeton in freshwater is 0.1 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83564 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This 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 six 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62752 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic criterion value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89387 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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.
Three 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality 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. Zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD 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: | 62760 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only, is 0.00014 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62761 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62759 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion for Dieldrin to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89102 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62768 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality criterion for disulfoton in freshwater (0.05 ug/L) is an aquatic life maximum (instantaneous) level. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83144 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Diuron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 six 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78567 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support. None of the six sample results were detected at levels above the Diuron criterion of 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Westside San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. The acute exposure (4-day average) value for Diuron is 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected from one monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected monthly between 2/11/2007 and 12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
83251 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate |
| 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criteria for MUN and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COMM. 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 six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COMM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62771 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62770 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89103 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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.
Three 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, zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality 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. Zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD 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: | 62778 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62779 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62780 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89189 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde |
| 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 COMM. 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 COMM 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: | 62782 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin Aldehyde criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62781 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89191 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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.
Three 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM. 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM 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: | 62993 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62975 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62974 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100129 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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.
Three 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM. 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM 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: | 62996 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62995 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62994 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
75715 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of thirteen samples exceed the USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas of 235 MPN/100 mL for REC-1. 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. Three of thirteen samples exceed the USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas of 235 MPN/100 mL for REC-1 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 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 62789 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22020 | ||||
| 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: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Sac Valley Water Quality Coalition collected 7 samples from March 2006 to September 2006. One out of 7 samples 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 from Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from March 2006 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
83415 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for 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 six 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 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 six exceed the criteria for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62997 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89278 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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.
Three 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM. 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM 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: | 63013 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63012 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, Gamma (Lindane) for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms only is 0.063 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63011 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83468 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 six 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. Zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63015 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion, 0.028 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83523 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 six 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. Zero of six samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63028 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89358 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(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 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. Zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD 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: | 63029 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for Methoxychlor, 30 ug/L, is incorporated by reference into the (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63040 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89359 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63041 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89360 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Mirex |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79451 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89441 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Monuron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79452 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Monuron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Monuron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for monuron, 330 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50). The 1/10 LC50 for monuron is 330 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89442 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63053 | ||||
| Pollutant: | N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Monuron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for monuron, 330 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 3,300 ug/L) for Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83525 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COLD, COMM and MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for COLD, COMM and MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63055 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Nickel criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms is 4.6 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63056 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63054 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83627 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 six samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63057 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate (NO3 as N) is 10.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100127 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 six samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63067 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrite (as N) is 1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89443 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 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 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: | 79453 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Oxamyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Oxamyl incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins is 50 ug/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR 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. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
82988 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This 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 six samples exceed the WQO 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 six samples exceeded the WQO for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63070 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: None of 6 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road-511XDGLT]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected approximately monthly between 2/11/2007 and 12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89444 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | 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)(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 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: | 63071 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Ethyl. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality chronic criterion (4-hour maximum) for parathion, is 0.013 µg/L, is for freshwater aquatic life. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83147 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COLD and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for COLD and zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63100 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for selenium is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63112 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83418 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Silver |
| 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the criteria for COLD and zero of three samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded the criteria for COLD and zero of three samples exceeded the criteria for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63114 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63113 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for silver is 0.1 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88391 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight 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 eight 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 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 62769 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant levels for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), an upper level (1,600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2,200 uS/cm). The recommended level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is protective of all drinking water uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88468 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of the six samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 63129 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Juoaquin River Basin Plans). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California (1976) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83633 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Thallium |
| 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of three samples exceed the criteria for COMM and MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of three samples exceeded the criteria for COMM and MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79098 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Thallium. | ||||
| 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 which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Gold Book states that thallium chronic toxicity to one species of fish occurs at concentrations as low as 20 ug/L after 2,600 hours of exposure. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79099 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Thallium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Thallium criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 6,300 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79100 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Thallium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for thallium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins is 0.002 mg/L (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 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88388 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 one samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the one 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 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 one samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, and zero of the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD 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: | 63130 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/15/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63131 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of Thiobencarb in excess of 1.0 µg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/15/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88389 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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.
Three 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, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality 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. Zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN, zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for COLD 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: | 63144 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63143 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 Ag Waiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00075 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 63142 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
75299 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of 7 samples tested with ceriodaphnia , 0 of 7 samples tested with fathead minnow, and 0 of 6 samples tested with selenastrum exceeded the narrative toxicity objective. One of two sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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 7 samples tested with ceriodaphnia , 0 of 7 samples tested with fathead minnow, and 0 of 6 samples tested with selenastrum exceeded the narrative toxicity objective. One of two sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity. This sample size does not exceed the 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: | 21996 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of seven samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.The sample collected 16 March 2006 exhibited 60% survival (60% of control). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March - September 2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21999 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of six samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March - September 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21998 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of two samples tested with Hyalella azteca was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.The sample collected 21 September 2006 exhibited 30% survival (30% of control). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control sediment using Dunnett's test in 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. Arcsin squareroot transformation was used when necessary to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Steel's Many-One Rank Test was used for comparison to control if these assumptions were not met after transformation. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March - September 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21997 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of seven samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March - September 2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
83726 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COLD and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for COLD and zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62915 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for zinc is 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62916 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agwaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
83767 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 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 six samples exceed the criteria for COLD, COMM and MUN beneficial uses.. 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 six samples exceeded the criteria for COLD, COMM and MUN beneficial uses. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62861 | ||||
| Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62860 | ||||
| Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62859 | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88857 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 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 COMM, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six samples exceed the water quality criteria for COMM, and zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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: | 62858 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62852 | ||||
| Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, alpha criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88939 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 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 COMM. 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 COMM 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: | 62879 | ||||
| Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, beta criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62878 | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100174 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| 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 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 six samples exceed the criteria for COLD, zero of six samples exceed the criteria for COMM and zero of six samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for COLD, zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for COMM and zero of six samples exceeded the criteria for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62881 | ||||
| Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62880 | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 62882 | ||||
| Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 agvaiver data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| 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 Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
88469 |
Region 5 |
Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six 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 six 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 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 79097 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Dry Creek (Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Dry Creek at Alta Mesa Road - 511XDCGLT] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/11/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||