|
LOE ID: |
22057 |
|
Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
6 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
None of the 6 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
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: |
Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. |
Guideline Reference: |
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from August 2004 to September 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
22064 |
|
Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
7 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
None of the 7 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
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: |
Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. |
Guideline Reference: |
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from August 2004 to September 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
22065 |
|
Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
7 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
None of 7 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
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: |
Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. |
Guideline Reference: |
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from August 2004 to September 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
9371 |
|
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 4 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 4 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule for Cold Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is also based on staff findings that 0 of 4 available concentrations exceeded the Department of Public Health Secondary MCL for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
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 9371 |
|
LOE ID: |
20533 |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
0 of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Zinc. |
Data Reference: |
San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
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: |
Zinc levels should not exceed 5000 ug/L (Department of Public Health Secondary MCL) |
Guideline Reference: |
Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected from Mar 18 2003 to Jun 30 2003 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
8783 |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Zinc. |
Data Reference: |
San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Total 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 Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected from Mar 18 2003 to Jun 30 2003 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
14573 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH (low) |
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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of 21 samples had pH values lower than the pH objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
|
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 14573 |
|
LOE ID: |
22063 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
13 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 13 samples from January 2003 ¿ January 2004. None of the 13 samples had a pH value lower than 6.5. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH. |
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: |
Measurement of pH within the range of 6.5 and 8.5. A low pH value is below 6.5. |
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4 |
Temporal Representation: |
Sampling occurred from January 2003 ¿ January 2004 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
|
|
|
LOE ID: |
22062 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
8 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
The San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Coalition collected 8 samples from August 2004 to September 2006. Two of the 8 samples did not meet the evaluation objective and had a pH lower than 6.5. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH. |
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: |
Measurement of pH within the range of 6.5 and 8.5. A low pH value is below 6.5. |
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Sampling occurred from August 2004 to September 2006 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
13024 |
|
Pollutant: |
Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Agriculture |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two 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. Two of 4 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 2 of 4 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion 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. |
|
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 13024 |
|
LOE ID: |
22058 |
|
Pollutant: |
Chlorpyrifos |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
7 water samples were collected from Duck Creek from August 2004 through September 2006, representing 4 4-day average concentrations and 4 1-hour average concentrations.2 of 4 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 µg/L.2 of 4 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.025 µg/L. 3 samples were not used in this analysis because of quantitation limits (0.0256 µg/L) greater than the water quality criteria concentrations. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game |
|
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: |
California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 µg/L 4-day average and 0.025 µg/L 1-hour average (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 |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected at monthly interval in August and September 2004, and from May through September 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
13020 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five 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. Five of 20 samples exceed the E. Coli objective 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 13020 |
|
LOE ID: |
22053 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
7 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
The San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Coalition collected 7 samples from August 2004 to September 2006. Two out of the 7 samples collected exceeded the evaluation objective. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region |
|
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986). |
Guideline Reference: |
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Sampling occurred in August and September of 2004 and monthly sampling occurred May 2006 to September 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
22054 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
13 |
Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 13 samples from January 2003 to January 2004. Three out of 13 samples exceeded the evaluation objective. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region |
|
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986). |
Guideline Reference: |
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Duck Creek at Highway 4. |
Temporal Representation: |
Sampling occurred from January 2003 to January 2004. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
|
|
DECISION ID |
9961 |
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Resource Extraction |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fifteen of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Fifteen of 24 samples exceed the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
|
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 9961 |
|
LOE ID: |
26102 |
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
|
Number of Samples: |
24 |
Number of Exceedances: |
15 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Fifteen of the 24 water samples collected from Duck Creek for the City of Stockton NPDES Municial Stormwater Program, exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for mercury of 0.050 ug/L (50 ng/L). |
Data Reference: |
San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Eastside Basin |
|
City of Stockton NPDES Municipal Stormwater Program Report of Waste Discharge |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
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: |
The USEPA (CTR) numeric criterion for the protection of human health for the consumption of both water and fish that live in the water is 50 ng/l (30-day average) for total recoverable mercury (40 CFR 131.38). |
Guideline Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Water samples were collected from Duck Creek Detention Basin Influent 1 - 555 Zephyr Drive, Stockton. |
Temporal Representation: |
Water samples were collected from Duck Creek between December 2003 and June 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data Quality: Good. Analysis done by labs with approved QAQC programs, in accordance with stormwater permit requirements. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |