Water Body Name: | Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
Water Body ID: | CAR4031100020000228145414 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
136461 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two if 6, 29 of 29 and 29 of 29 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257708 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 27 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 27 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 27 of the 27 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 16 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257873 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257821 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 27 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 27 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 27 of the 27 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 16 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 309955 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84126 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The genus mean acute value for a mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) of 0.00397 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310163 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136441 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 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. 0 of 0, 0 of 0, 2 of 6, 2 of 6, 10 of 10 and 10 of 10 samples exceeded the criterion for chlordane in water and 2 of 2 samples exceeded the guideline for chlordane in fish tissue and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides TMDL was approved by USEPA on 3/14/2006. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2028 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of 2 samples exceeded. A total of 2 filet composite samples of goldfish and brown bullhead were collected. Goldfish sample was collected in 1993 and brown bullhead was collected in 1994. The guideline was exceeded in both samples. In addition, one whole fish sample of fathead minnow was collected in 1994 and exceeded the guideline (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | OEHHA Screening Value 30 ng/g for chlordane (total). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One station located above culvert in Oxnard Drain #2 at Perimeter Road crossing. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected annually 1993-94. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267412 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total Chlordane. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267795 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 10 of the 10 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Chlordane. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 33 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total Chlordane. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84128 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saltwater is 0.004 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267813 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 10 of the 10 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Chlordane. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 33 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84129 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136442 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Toxicity (2) |
TMDL Project Code: | 355 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/24/2006 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 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. 2 of 2, 2 of 2, 20 of 43, 5 of 6 and 20 of 43 samples exceeded the criteria and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The TMDL for Toxicity in Calleguas Creek was approved by USEPA on 3/24/2006. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258369 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258367 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 20 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 20 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84133 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The saltwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.009 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258229 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 20 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 20 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
149530 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeds the criteria. 1 of 1 sample exceeds the criteria. 2 of 2 samples exceed the guideline. 21 of 21 samples exceed the criteria. 2 of 2 samples exceed the criteria. 2 of 6 samples exceed the criteria. 21 of 21 samples exceed the criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1, 1 of 1, 21 of 21, 2 of 2, 2of 6, and 21 of 21 samples exceeded the criteria and 2 of 2 samples exceeded the guideline this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259938 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 21 of the 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 22 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(4,4') criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259889 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(4,4') criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259898 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 21 of the 21 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 22 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(4,4') criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84141 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84142 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Four sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT-4,4' criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2032 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of 2 samples exceeded (note: Whole fish sample of fathead minnow exceeded NAS Guideline in 1994). A filet composite sample of goldfish and one individual sample of brown bullhead were collected. Goldfish were collected in 1993 while brown bullhead were collected in 1994. The guideline was exceeded in both samples (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | OEHHA Screening Value: 100 ng/g for DDT | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One station located above culvert in Oxnard Drain 2 at Perimeter Road crossing. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 1993-94. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260017 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(4,4') criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136458 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/24/2006 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. 6 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 0 samples exceed the criteria. 0 of the 0 samples exceed the criteria. 12 of the 12 samples exceed the criteria. 12 of the 12 samples exceed the criteria. 3 of the 3 samples exceed the criteria. 2 of the 2 samples exceed the screening value for toxaphene in fish tissue. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 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. 0 of 0, 0 of 0, 12 of 12, 12 of12, and 3 of 3 samples exceeded the criteria and 2 of 2 samples exceed the screening value and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The TMDLs for Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Siltation in Calleguas Creek, Its Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon was approved on 3/24/2006 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. LOE 84179 is not being considered for this decision because this waterbody should not have been assessed for the Estuarine Habitat beneficial use. These data are instead assessed in LOE 84180 for Commercial collection of fish and shellfish. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2030 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of 2 samples exceeded. A total of 2 filet composite samples of goldfish and brown bullhead were collected. Goldfish sample was collected in 1993 and brown bullhead was collected in 1994. The guideline was exceeded in both samples. In addition, one whole fish sample of fathead minnow was collected in 1994 and exceeded the NAS Guideline (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | OEHHA Screening Value: 30 ng/g for toxaphene. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One station located above culvert in Oxnard Drain #2 at Perimeter Road crossing. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected annually 1993-94. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84180 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Three sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84179 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Three sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267781 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 12 of the 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Toxaphene. Although a total of 42 samples were collected, 30 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267724 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267689 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267974 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 12 of the 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Toxaphene. Although a total of 42 samples were collected, 30 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136464 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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)(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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 0, 0 of 6, 0 of 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 256435 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The aldrin criterion maximum concentration (expressed as a 1-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 1.5 ug/L. The criterion of 3 ug/L provided in the California Toxics Rule is an instantaneous maximum concentration and was divided by 2 in order to better represent a criterion maximum concentration (CMC) value as specified in footnote (g) of Table (b)(1) of the California Toxics Rule (2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 256310 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The aldrin criterion maximum concentration (expressed as a 1-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 1.5 ug/L. The criterion of 3 ug/L provided in the California Toxics Rule is an instantaneous maximum concentration and was divided by 2 in order to better represent a criterion maximum concentration (CMC) value as specified in footnote (g) of Table (b)(1) of the California Toxics Rule (2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 256398 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The aldrin criterion maximum concentration (expressed as a 1-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 1.5 ug/L. The criterion of 3 ug/L provided in the California Toxics Rule is an instantaneous maximum concentration and was divided by 2 in order to better represent a criterion maximum concentration (CMC) value as specified in footnote (g) of Table (b)(1) of the California Toxics Rule (2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84119 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 1.3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84117 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.000050 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 256391 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The aldrin criterion maximum concentration (expressed as a 1-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 1.5 ug/L. The criterion of 3 ug/L provided in the California Toxics Rule is an instantaneous maximum concentration and was divided by 2 in order to better represent a criterion maximum concentration (CMC) value as specified in footnote (g) of Table (b)(1) of the California Toxics Rule (2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136438 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257300 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
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 is 150 ug/L. The conversion factor used to convert the total fraction criterion for arsenic to dissolved fraction criterion is 1. Therefore all data was considered to be representative of the dissolved fraction. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257399 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
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 is 150 ug/L. The conversion factor used to convert the total fraction criterion for arsenic to dissolved fraction criterion is 1. Therefore all data was considered to be representative of the dissolved fraction. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136439 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Atrazine |
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: | 257367 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of < 1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a 'less-than' value (for example, <1,500) and may underestimate toxicity. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2010-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257694 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of < 1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a 'less-than' value (for example, <1,500) and may underestimate toxicity. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2010-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136440 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the criterion and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258038 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved cadmium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 2.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258067 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved cadmium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 2.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136443 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259070 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved copper criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 9 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259094 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved copper criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 9 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
152529 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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: | 310733 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310504 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136445 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 6, 0 of 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Estuarine Habitat is not a beneficial use applied to this waterbody. LOE 84145 should be assessed for either Cold Freshwater Habitat or Warm Freshwater Habitat. It does not make a difference to the listing decision if it is considered separately or added to either of the other LOEs. |
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: | 260147 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.10 ug/L (4 day average)(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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260106 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.10 ug/L (4 day average)(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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260029 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.10 ug/L (4 day average)(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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260274 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.10 ug/L (4 day average)(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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84145 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for diazinon to protect saltwater aquatic organisms is 0.82 ug/L (EPA-822-R-05-006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
152522 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310328 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310343 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
152523 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Dicofol |
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: | 310393 | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310395 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136446 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 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. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 6, 0 of 0, 0 of 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the criterion and this does not exceed the frequency allowed by 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 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: | 260489 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260389 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84149 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260553 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84148 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saltwater is 0.0019 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260448 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
152525 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310266 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310301 | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136447 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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)(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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 6, 0 of 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260932 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for endosulfan sulfate for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.056 ug/l (24 hour average) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84099 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from the 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260844 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for endosulfan sulfate for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.056 ug/l (24 hour average) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260888 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for endosulfan sulfate for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.056 ug/l (24 hour average) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260843 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for endosulfan sulfate for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.056 ug/l (24 hour average) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136448 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 43, 0 of 43, 0 of 6 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261321 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261244 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261022 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84101 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saltwater is 0.0023 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84102 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261021 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
152531 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 310289 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310210 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
152526 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310530 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310525 | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
152521 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 310712 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenvalerate | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenvalerate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenvalerate is the LC50 of 1.13 ug/L for fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310729 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenvalerate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenvalerate is the LC50 of 1.13 ug/L for fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136449 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262949 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved lead criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 2.5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262906 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved lead criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 2.5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136450 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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)(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 are necessary to assess listing status. 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. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 6, 0 of 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the criterion and this does not exceed the frequency allowed by 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 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: | 262135 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane, gamma-HCH) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261949 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane, gamma-HCH) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262030 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane, gamma-HCH) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84112 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, gamma(Lindane). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.16 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262068 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane, gamma-HCH) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
149531 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45, 0 of 45, 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 263463 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentration (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to total mercury is 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 263683 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentration (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to total mercury is 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 263738 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentration (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to total mercury is 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 263627 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentration (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to total mercury is 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
152524 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310664 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-09-16 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310611 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-09-16 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136452 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the criterion and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 263932 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved nickel criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 52 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264014 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved nickel criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 52 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136455 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
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: | 264675 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). Although a total of 37 samples were collected, 37 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The PCB, total aroclors criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2017-05-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264590 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The PCB, total aroclors criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264623 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). Although a total of 37 samples were collected, 37 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The PCB, total aroclors criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2017-05-10 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264444 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The PCB, total aroclors criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
152527 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Phorate |
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: | 310997 | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310962 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
152528 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Phosmet |
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: | 310849 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.75 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-09-16 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310852 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.75 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-09-16 and 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136463 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Prometryn |
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: | 265460 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of Prometryn does not exceed 0.562 ug/L (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Prometryn 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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2010-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265478 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of Prometryn does not exceed 0.562 ug/L (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Prometryn 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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2010-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136457 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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: | 266561 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2010-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 266582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2010-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136459 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 and 0 of 45 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268352 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved zinc criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 120 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268528 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved zinc criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is hardness dependent. The criterion when calculated using a default hardness of 100 mg/L is 120 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136444 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 pf 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/CRITERIA and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260671 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan I (alpha-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261005 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan I (alpha-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260981 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan I (alpha-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260673 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan I (alpha-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136454 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2, 0 of 2, 0 of 43 and 0 of 43 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260928 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan II (beta-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260948 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan II (beta-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260994 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan II (beta-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260925 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan II (beta-endosulfan) criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136465 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0, 0 of 0, 3 of 3 and 3 of 3 samples exceed the CRITERIA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259236 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259465 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 40 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259259 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310087 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259238 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 40 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136462 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 11 of 11 and 11 of 11 samples exceeded the criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84134 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The genus mean acute value for a grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) of 0.016 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310174 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310045 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259737 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259716 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259665 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 11 of the 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 32 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259276 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 11 of the 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 32 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136466 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 2 of the 2 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/CRITERIA for COLD and WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 2 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/CRITERIA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310353 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310252 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260233 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260171 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 41 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260191 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260306 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 41 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
152530 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 3 and 3 of 3 samples exceed the criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310600 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0015 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310479 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0015 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136451 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. NUMBER lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. NUMBER of the NUMBER samples exceed the OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 2, 1 of 2, 1 of 6, 11 of 43 and 11 of 43 samples exceed the CRITERIA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262977 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262939 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262938 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84113 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for saltwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for malathion is 0.1 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262940 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136467 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. Sven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 4 and 4 of 4 samples exceed the CRITERIA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84168 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
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. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The interim criteria maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.001 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264924 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264874 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Permethrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 40 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264818 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Permethrin. Although a total of 43 samples were collected, 40 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264892 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-12-19 to 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310802 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Permethrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 5 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310990 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Permethrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 5 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136460 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1, 1 of 1, 29 of 29 and 29 of 29 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265930 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 45 samples were collected, 44 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265991 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 29 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 29 of 29 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265476 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 45 samples were collected, 44 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: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (01T_ODD2_DCH). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2010-11-09 to 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265761 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 29 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 29 of 29 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310857 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310749 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-24 and 2009-02-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310842 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-01-05 to 2009-08-04 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310776 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP 2007-2009 data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethroids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-24 and 2009-02-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
136456 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2037 |
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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 24 of 45, 24 of 45, 25 of 45 and 25 of 45 samples exceed the criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265859 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 25 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 25 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265898 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 24 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265904 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 25 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 25 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265860 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 45 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 24 of 45 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
149529 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | See TMDL documentation |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Nitrogen (1) |
TMDL Project Code: | 228 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 07/16/2003 |
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 waterbody. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 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. 32 of 37 and 32 of 37 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL was approved by USEPA on July 16, 2003 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 302411 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 32 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 32 of 37 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-34) states that: Waters shall not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-02-01 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 302449 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 32 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 32 of 37 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-34) states that: Waters shall not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-02-01 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
136453 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | See TMDL documentation |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Toxicity (2) |
TMDL Project Code: | 355 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/24/2006 |
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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 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. 1 of 2, 1 of 2, 4 of 43 and 4 of 43 samples exceed the guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Calleguas Creek Toxicity TMDL was approved by USEPA on March 24, 2006. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264342 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264234 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-19 and 2012-01-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264291 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Calleguas Creek TMDL Work Plan Monitoring data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 43 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 01T_ODD2_DCH (Duck Pond/Mugu/Oxnard Drain #2 S. of Hueneme Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-11-09 and 2018-05-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES. 2020. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
69177 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Toxicity (2) |
TMDL Project Code: | 355 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/2005 |
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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 0 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 1 of the 5 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used 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. 1 of 5 samples exceeded the 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 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2034 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84181 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. One of the five samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca, cell density for Thalassiosira pseudonana, survival and reproduction for Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival and growth of Americamysis bahia. Statistically significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproduction was observed on 1/5/2008. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. EPA 600/4-90/27. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in June and September 2007, January and September 2008 and August 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2035 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95513 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84122 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface water shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Ocean Plan ammonia objective for marine aquatic life is a 6-month median of 600 ug/L as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95402 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 3 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 3 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84123 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Azinphos methyl (Guthion) criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 0.01 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 9/16/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95789 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the 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 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: | 84131 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples collected exceeded the recommended level of 230 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. These drains are tributary to Magu Lagoon and therefore the recommended objectives for chloride for protection of aquatic life apply. The recommended protection is a 4 day Continuous Concentration of 230 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | samples were collected from the 01T_ODD2_DCH station. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately thrice annually in 2008 and 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95454 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84144 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria lists criterion continuous concentrations for Demeton to protect aquatic life in freshwater and saltwater 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95733 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION 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: | 84152 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The endosulfan criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 89 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95735 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.30 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95400 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 0 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84107 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84106 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.0036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95401 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERION. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 0 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84110 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor Epoxide. Six sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84109 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor Epoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor epoxide criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 0.0036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95512 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84114 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for saltwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for methoxychlor is 0.03 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95556 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the 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 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: | 84167 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-11) states that: "The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as both COLD and SPWN shall not be depressed below 7 mg/L as a result of waste discharges." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95788 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION 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: | 84121 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, alpha. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Guideline 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 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95790 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION 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: | 84125 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, beta. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Guideline 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 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
72210 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 6 samples exceeded 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 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: | 84143 | ||||
Pollutant: | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, delta. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, delta criteria for the protection of human health from 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95337 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 9, 0 of 9 and 0 of 9 samples exceeded the 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 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: | 84170 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84169 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84172 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
68974 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | ChemA |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2005 and subsequently approved by USEPA. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
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. 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: | 2033 | ||||
Pollutant: | ChemA (tissue) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
85873 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 2 of 2 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 2 of 2 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84137 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDD(p,p). Four sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD-4,4' criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
99641 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 4 of 4 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 4 of 4 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 84139 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for DDE(p,p). Two sample result(s) 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE-4,4' criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
68859 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Nitrogen (1) |
TMDL Project Code: | 228 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 06/20/2003 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL has an approved implementation plan. USEPA approved the TMDL on June 20, 2003. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
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. 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: | 2026 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||