Draft 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: Agatha Canal (Merced County)
Water Body ID: CAR5412000020090110150509
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
9494
 
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
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 11 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 11 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.

The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9494
 
LOE ID: 20365
 
Pollutant: Copper
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 11
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: 0 of the 11 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Copper.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Grassland Bypass
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Copper levels should not exceed calculated limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average, dissolved)=(EXP(0.9422*LN(hardness)-1.7))*(0.96) (CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
  Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Agatha Canal @ Mallard Road.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Mar 2 1986 to Nov 28 1993
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
9495
 
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
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 6 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 6 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.

The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9495
 
LOE ID: 20950
 
Pollutant: Lead
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 6
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: 0 of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Lead.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Grassland Bypass
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Lead levels should not exceed the calculated value based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average, total)=(EXP(1.273*LN(hardness)-1.46)) (CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
  Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Agatha Canal @ Mallard Road.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Mar 2 1986 to Nov 28 1993
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
9498
 
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
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 6 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 6 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.

The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9498
 
LOE ID: 20978
 
Pollutant: Nickel
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 6
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: 0 of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Nickel.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Grassland Bypass
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Nickel levels should not exceed the calculated limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average, total)=(EXP(0.846*LN(hardness)+2.255)) (CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
  Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Agatha Canal.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Mar 2 1986 to Nov 28 1993
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
9499
 
Pollutant: Selenium
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
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 18 of 334 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. According to BinomBal listing is recommended if a sample size of 334 has 29 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.

The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9499
 
LOE ID: 20954
 
Pollutant: Selenium
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 334
Number of Exceedances: 18
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: 18 of the 334 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Grassland Bypass
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Selenium levels for Salt Slough and constructed and re-constructed water supply channels in the Grassland watershed should not exceed 5 ug/L, total concentration.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Agatha Canal @ Mallard Road.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Oct 27 1995 to Dec 23 2002
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
9500
 
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
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 5 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.

The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9500
 
LOE ID: 21012
 
Pollutant: Zinc
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 5
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: 0 of the 5 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Zinc.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Grassland Bypass
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Zinc levels should not exceed the calculated limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration=EXP((0.8473*LN(hardness))+0.884)(CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
  Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Agatha Canal.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Apr 27 1986 to Nov 28 1993
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
15933
 
Pollutant: pH
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Sources: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Seven of 28 samples exceed the pH objective found in the Basin Plan 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.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 15933
 
LOE ID: 20963
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 28
Number of Exceedances: 7
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: 7 of the 28 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Grassland Bypass
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (Basin Plan Objective)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Agatha Canal @ Mallard Road.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Oct 27 1995 to Feb 18 1997
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):