|
DECISION ID |
15082 |
|
Pollutant: |
Unknown Toxicity |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One 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. One of 9 samples tested with selenastrum exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 9 samples tested with ceriodaphnia exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Lastly, 0 of 10 samples tested with fathead minnow exceeded the narrative toxicity objective 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. |
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
LOE ID: |
25486 |
|
Pollutant: |
Plant Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
9 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
One of nine samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Percent of control is indicated in parentheses below. One sample collected at Avenue 21 on 28 February 2006 (66) exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. |
Data Reference: |
Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program |
|
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region |
|
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: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Water samples were collected from Ash Slough at Avenue 21. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from June 2005 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. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
25483 |
|
Pollutant: |
Invertebrate Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
9 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
None of the 9 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: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
|
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from June 2005 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. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
25485 |
|
Pollutant: |
Vertebrate Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
10 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
None of the 10 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: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
|
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from June 2005 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. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
12623 |
|
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: |
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 3.1 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.
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. Four of 10 calculated 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.
4. Two of 10 available 1-hour maximum concentrations exceeded the 1-hour maximum concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
5. 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 12623 |
|
LOE ID: |
25494 |
|
Pollutant: |
Chlorpyrifos |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
10 |
Number of Exceedances: |
4 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Ten water samples were collected from Ash Slough in 2005 and 2006, representing ten calculated 4-day average concentrations and ten 1-hour average concentrations. Four of the ten calculated 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average criterion of 0.015 µg/L. Two of the ten 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average criterion of 0.025 µg/L. |
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. |
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: |
California Department of Fish and Game Hazard freshwater aquatic life protection, chlorpyrifos criteria: 0.015 µg/L 4-day average, and 0.025 µg/L 1-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once every three years. |
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: |
Water samples were collected from Ash Slough at Avenue 21. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected monthly or every other month, between 14 June 2005 12 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. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
12630 |
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
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 3.1 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.
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 5 water samples exceed the 4-day maximum criterion for total copper 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 12630 |
|
LOE ID: |
25493 |
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
5 |
Number of Exceedances: |
5 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Five water samples were collected from Ash Slough in 2006. All five samples exceeded the CCC for total copper. |
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: |
USEPA California Toxics Rule (CTR), total copper, freshwater aquatic life protection Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC, 4-day Average) calculated as (e{.8545xLN[hardness]}-1.702). |
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 |
|
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: |
|
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected monthly between 16 May and 12 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. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
12631 |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
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 3.1 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.
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 5 samples exceed the 4-day maximum freshwater aquatric life protection criterion for total lead, 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 12631 |
|
LOE ID: |
25492 |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
5 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Five samples were collected from Ash Slough in 2006. Two of the five samples exceed the CCC for total lead. |
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: |
USEPA California Toxics Rule Criterion (CTR) for total lead, freshwater aquatic life protection, Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC, as 4-day average) calculated as: (e{1.273xLN[hardness]}-4.705). |
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 |
|
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: |
Water samples were collected from Ash Slough at Avenue 21. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected monthly between 16 May 2006 and 12 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): |