Pollutant: |
Chlorpyrifos |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Dichlorvos |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board Conclusion: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
|
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: |
|
|
State Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120874, Dichlorvos
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
188709 |
|
Pollutant: |
Dichlorvos |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
0 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07). |
Temporal Representation: |
Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-06-06 to 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Dimethoate |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120881, Dimethoate
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
189187 |
|
Pollutant: |
Dimethoate |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Ethalfluralin |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120883, Ethalfluralin
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
189880 |
|
Pollutant: |
Ethalfluralin |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethalfluralin. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Ethalfluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Ethoprop |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120884, Ethoprop
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
189644 |
|
Pollutant: |
Ethoprop |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for 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 (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Imidacloprid |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board Conclusion: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
|
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: |
|
|
State Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120878, Imidacloprid
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
190673 |
|
Pollutant: |
Imidacloprid |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
0 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Imidacloprid. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Imidacloprid does not exceed 0.016 ug/L. (UC Davis Water Quality Criteria) |
Guideline Reference: |
Water Quality Criteria Report for Imidacloprid Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology. University of California, Davis
|
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07). |
Temporal Representation: |
Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-06-06 to 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Malathion |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120875, Malathion
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
191099 |
|
Pollutant: |
Malathion |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
0 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Malathion. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria). |
Guideline Reference: |
Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07). |
Temporal Representation: |
Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-06-06 to 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Methidathion |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120880, Methidathion
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
191477 |
|
Pollutant: |
Methidathion |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Methyl Parathion |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Oryzalin |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120879, Oryzalin
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
192507 |
|
Pollutant: |
Oryzalin |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oryzalin. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 13 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Oxyfluorfen |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board Conclusion: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
|
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120882, Oxyfluorfen
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
192741 |
|
Pollutant: |
Oxyfluorfen |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxyfluorfen. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Oxyfluorfen is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.29 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Pendimethalin |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120885, Pendimethalin
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
192970 |
|
Pollutant: |
Pendimethalin |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pendimethalin. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for 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 (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Prodiamine |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120886, Prodiamine
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
193120 |
|
Pollutant: |
Prodiamine |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prodiamine. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Prodiamine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Pollutant: |
Trifluralin |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board Conclusion: |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 120877, Trifluralin
|
Region 5 |
Boundary Drain (Merced County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
194290 |
|
Pollutant: |
Trifluralin |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
1 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Boundary Drain (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. |
Data Reference: |
Sediment, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.9 ug/L for a fish (chronic). |
Guideline Reference: |
OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (541XSSJ07) |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-06 and 2011-06-06 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Department of Pesticide Regulation |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|