Final California 2012 Integrated Report( 303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Delta Waterways (northern portion)
Water Body ID:	CAE5100000020041005163014
Water Body Type:	Estuary


DECISION ID	20176	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Nine composite fish tissue samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for the narrative toxicity water quality objective. 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 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. Nine of 11 fish tissue samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline values used for assessing total DDT in fish tissue, and this exceeds the narrative toxicity objective and therefore, 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. 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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20176, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

574

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four out of 6 samples exceeded. A total of 3 filet composite samples of white catfish, one filet composite of smallmouth bass, and individual filet samples of channel catfish and largemouth bass were collected. White catfish were collected in 1992-93 and 1998. Channel catfish were collected in 1993. Largemouth bass were collected in 1998 and smallmouth bass in 2001. The guideline was exceeded in all catfish samples. Bass did not exceed the guideline (TSMP, 2002).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

OEHHA Screening Value of 100 ng/g for DDT (Brodberg & Pollock, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

One station near Hood located in the river stretch from Clarksburg to Courtland along the Sacramento/Yolo County line.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected annually 1992-93, 1998, 2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 Data Report.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20176, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

26138

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish whole body

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sacramento sucker and Carp were captured from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista on 1 August 2005 and White catfish was captured on 1 September 2005.

Sacramento Sucker and Chinook were captured from the Sacramento River at River Mile 44 on 11 October 2005.

The above composites were analyzed for different forms of DDT:

The forms of DDT analyzed included: DDT (o,p), DDT (p,p), DDD (o,p), DDD (p,p), DDE (o,p), DDE (p,p), DDMU (p,p).

All three composites of Sacramento sucker, Carp and White catfish from Rio Vista exceeded the OEHHA value of 21 ug/kg. Sacramento sucker had total DDT of 91.59 ug/kg, Carp had total DDT of148.99 ug/kg and White catfish had total DDT of 28.744 ug/kg.

All two composites of Sacramento sucker and Chinook at River Mile 44 exceeded the OEHHA value of 21 ug/kg. Sacramento sucker had total DDT of 42.191 ug/kg and Chinook had had total DDT of15.280 ug/kg.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

OEHHA 2008 Fish Contaminant Goals (FCG) are based on cancer risk assessments using an 8-Ounce/Week (prior to cooking) consumption rate of 32 g/day. The FCG used as a screening value for total DDT (with a cancer slope factor of 0.34 mg/kg/day) should be less than 21 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista and at River Mile 44.

Temporal Representation:

Sacramento sucker and Carp were captured on 1 August 2005 while White catfish was captured on 1 September 2005 from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista.
Sacramento Sucker and Chinook were captured from the Sacramento River at River Mile 44 on 11 October 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Sacramento River Watershed Program QAPP requirements.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program


DECISION ID	25870	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Group A Pesticides
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for removal from the 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. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. None of samples provided a sufficient quantitation of chemical concentrations as described in section 6.1.5.5 of the listing policy. 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 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. None of 88 samples that were used in the evaluation did not provide a sufficient quantitation of chemical concentrations as described in section 6.1.5.5 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. 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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 25870, Group A Pesticides	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

23166

Pollutant:

alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-eight samples were taken from the north portion of the Delta Waterways between January 2001 through February 2006.

Data Reference:

Coordinated monitoring program (CMP) database. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (USEPA)Human Health Protection One-in-a-Million Incremental Cancer Risk Estimate: 0.0026 ug/L Water & Fish Consumption Carcinogen; limit based on cancer risk.Adopted: 11/01/2002

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

National Ambient Water Quality Criteria-Human Health Protection. One-in-a-Million Incremental Cancer Risk Estimate (water & fish consumption) limit of 0.0026 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from north portion of the Delta Waterways: Discovery, Nimbus, Freeport, Veterans, Howe, AMR HWY 80, and Garcia.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from January 2001 through February 2006. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: None.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 25870, Group A Pesticides	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

4188

Pollutant:

Group A Pesticides

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	20684	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2009
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 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 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. 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20684, Mercury	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

573

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nine out of 16 samples exceeded. A total of 4 filet composite and 12 individual samples of the following fish were collected: 12 white catfish, and one each largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, chinook salmon. White catfish were collected in 1992-93 and 1998. Channel catfish were collected in 1993. Largemouth bass were collected in 1998 and smallmouth bass in 2001. Chinook salmon were collected in 2002. Seven white catfish samples collected in 1992 and 1998 exceeded the guideline. The largemouth bass and smallmouth bass also exceed the guideline (TSMP, 2002).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

0.3 ug/g - OEHHA Screening Value (Brodberg & Pollock, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Two stations were sampled: in the river stretch from Clarksburg to Courtland along the Sacramento/Yolo County line (Hood), about 3 miles downstream of Garcia Bend launch ramp (RM44).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected annually 1992-93, 1996-99, 2001-02.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	26849	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Two composite fish tissue samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for chlordane and, therefore, exceed the narrative toxicity water quality objective. 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 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 of 5 composite fish tissue samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline values used for assessing chlordane in fish tissue, and this exceeds the narrative toxicity objective and therefore, 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. 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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 26849, Chlordane	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

26136

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish whole body

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sacramento sucker and Carp were captured from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista on 1 August 2005 while White catfish was captured on 1 September 2005.

Also Sacramento sucker and Chinook were captured from Sacramento River at River Mile 44 on 11 October 2005.

Nine analyses from each composite fish sample were examined for different forms of Chlordane. The forms of chlordane analyzed included: cis-Chlordane, trans-Chlordane, alpha-Chlordene, gamma-Chlordene, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor and Oxychlordane.

For the Rio Vista site, one of the composite samples of Sacramento sucker and one composite for Carp had total Chlordane values of 6.7 ug/kg and 6.91 ug/kg respectively. These composites exceeded the 5.6 ug/kg OEHHA screening value for total chlordane in fish tissue.

Samples collected from River Mile 44 did not exceed the OEHHA guidelines.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

OEHHA 2008 Fish Contaminant Goals (FCG) are based on cancer risk assessments using an 8-Ounce/Week (prior to cooking) consumption rate of 32 g/day. The FCG used as a screening value for total chlordane (with a cancer slope factor of 1.3 mg/kg/day) should be less than 5.6 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista and at River Mile 44.

Temporal Representation:

Sacramento sucker and Carp were captured on 1 August 2005 while White catfish was captured on 1 September 2005 from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista.
Sacramento sucker and Chinook were captured on 11 October 2005 at River Mile 44.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Sacramento River Watershed Program QAPP requirements.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program


DECISION ID	26724	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 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. 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 5 composite fish tissue samples collected from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista and at River Mile 44 exceed the Evaluation Guideline for dieldrin in fish tissue (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg), and this exceeds the narrative toxicity objective and, therefore, 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. 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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 26724, Dieldrin	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

26137

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish whole body

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

At Rio Vista: Sacramento sucker and Carp were captured on 1 August 2005 while White catfish was captured 1 September 2005.

At River Mile 44: Sacramento Sucker and Chinook were captured on 11 October 2005.

All the above fish composites were analyzed for Dieldrin.

All three composites of Sacramento sucker, Carp and White catfish at Rio Vista exceeded the OEHHA screening value of 0.46 ug/kg and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Sacramento sucker had Dieldrin levels of 1.73 ug/kg, Carp had Dieldrin levels of 0.944 ug/kg and White catfish had 0.654 ug/kg.

One composite sample of Sacramento Sucker from River Mile 44 had 0.864 ug/kg of Dieldrin and one composite sample of Chinook from River Mile 44 had 0.786 ug/kg of Dieldrin and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

OEHHA 2008 Fish Contaminant Goals (FCG) are based on cancer risk assessments using an 8-Ounce/Week (prior to cooking) consumption rate of 32 g/day. The FCG used as a screening value for Dieldrin (with a cancer slope factor of 16 mg/kg/day) should be less than 0.46 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista and at River Mile 44.

Temporal Representation:

Sacramento sucker and Carp were captured on 1 August 2005 while White catfish was captured on 1 September 2005 from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista. Sacramento Sucker and Chinook were captured from the Sacramento River at River Mile 44 on 11 October 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Sacramento River Watershed Program QAPP requirements.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program


DECISION ID	20180	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Invasive Species
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There have been numerous studies since the late 1960's showing sharp declines in phytoplankton biomass and in native species, such as the delta smelt, which has declined ten-fold over the last 20 years. Non-native species are believed to be responsible for this alteration in the Delta food web and extirpating native species. 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. There are numerous studies since the late 1960's. 2. Baseline data is from data acquired from these earlier studies. 3. Trends were determined using statistical analyses on graphs and tables. 4. Summer chlorophyll-a decreased markedly after invasion of the non-native Asian clam. Phytoplankton is a significant source during the spring and summer for many species in the Delta. 5. Phytoplankton biomass has declined over the past few decades, affecting food biomass availability for higher tropic levels. Some non-native species compete with zooplankton for food, or alter species composition of the food web. In areas where non-natives are abundant, native fishes are rare or absent. 6. It cannot be determined if the trend in water quality is expected to meet water standards by the next listing cycle. 7. 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20180, Invasive Species	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

571

Pollutant:

Invasive Species

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Not Specified

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The species assessed in support of this listing are: fathead minnow, bigscale logperch, catfish, carp, and brook trout. American shad were planted in the Sacramento River in 1871, and by 1879 a commercial fishery had developed. The next successful introductions, in 1872, were carp and brook trout. In 1874, tank cars brought in four species of catfish and two species of black bass. The striped bass became one of the most successful introductions. It became one of the most abundant fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta following the planting of a total of 432 fish in 1879 and 1882. The bigscale logperch was introduced into the Central Valley when ponds overflowed during a wet year at Beale Air Force Base. In the Central Valley, the few streams that are now dominated by fathead minnows were probably originally dominated by California roach (Moyle, P.B. 1976).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board. Taken from Region 5 Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta extends from Chipps Island to include leveed and flooded islands, river channels, sloughs, and tidal marshes.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification.

QAPP Information:

Peer Reviewed Journal Article and Reports.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20180, Invasive Species	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

572

Pollutant:

Invasive Species

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Asian clam was the species assessed in support of this listing. Thousands of chlorophyll-a measurements have been made in the Delta since the late 1960s and 55-93% of these measurements, depending on the year, are below 10 ug/L. Growth rates of some primary consumers are closely tied to phytoplankton availability below about 10ug/L. There is a statistically significant downward trend of phytoplankton from 1975-1995 (Jassby et al., 2003). In 1986 the non-native Asian clam invaded Suisun Bay. The Asian clam is a consumer of phytoplankton, changing phytoplankton dynamics in Suisun Bay and the western Delta. Summer chlorophyll decreased markedly after the Asian clam invaded and phytoplankton biomass has declined over the past few decades, affecting food biomass availability for higher tropic levels of the Delta. Some non-native species compete with zooplankton for food, or alter species composition of the food web, affecting native species survival. Recent studies in the central Delta show that introduced fishes dominate (USFWS, 2004. Five-Year Review of Recovery Plan for Delta Smelt. Federal Register 68(148):45270-45271). In areas where non-natives are abundant, native fishes are rare or absent. Over the last 20 years, the native delta smelt population has taken a ten-fold decline in numbers, due in part by non-native species predation and lack of adequate food supply (USFWS, 2004).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta extends from Chipps Island to include leveed and flooded islands, river channels, sloughs, and tidal marshes. Stations were distributed throughout the Delta for sampling by the Dept. of Water Resources to assess water quality, some since the late 1960's.

Temporal Representation:

Numerous studies since the late 1960s.

Environmental Conditions:

Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification.

QAPP Information:

Peer Reviewed Journal Article and Reports.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	20175	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. 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 the 6 samples exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20175, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

575

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two out of 6 samples exceeded. A total of 3 filet composite samples of white catfish, one filet composite of smallmouth bass, and individual filet samples of channel catfish and largemouth bass were collected. White catfish were collected in 1992-93 and 1998. Channel catfish were collected in 1993. Largemouth bass were collected in 1998 and smallmouth bass in 2001. The guideline was exceeded in 1992 and 1998 catfish samples (TSMP, 2002).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

OEHHA Screening Value of 20 ng/g for total PCBs (Brodberg & Pollock, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

One station near Hood located in the river stretch from Clarksburg to Courtland along the Sacramento/Yolo County line.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected annually 1992-93, 1998, and 2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	18922	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18922, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

4189

Pollutant:

Unknown Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	20124	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
TMDL Name:	Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Project
TMDL Project Code:	185
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	10/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. There is sufficient justification to place this pollutant the Being Addressed portion of the 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.. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2006 and approved by USEPA on 10 October 2007.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20124, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

4186

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	20264	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

Pollutant:	Diazinon
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
TMDL Name:	Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Project
TMDL Project Code:	185
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	10/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. There is sufficient justification to place this pollutant the Being Addressed portion of the 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.. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2006 and approved by USEPA on 10 October 2007.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 20264, Diazinon	Region 5
Delta Waterways (northern portion)

LOE ID:

4187

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):