Draft California 2020 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 4 - Los Angeles Region

Water Body Name:	Hopper Creek
Water Body ID:	CAR4034100020020131112807
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	69376	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Sulfates
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2015
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 11 of the 12 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE. 1 of the 4 samples exceed the 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 11 of 12 and 1 of 4 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69376, Sulfates	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84794

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Sulfate.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Table 3-8 of The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region specifies the Sulfate objective for Hopper Creek within the Santa Clara River's Between Blue Cut gaging station (approx. 1 mile west of LA/Ventura county line) and A Street, Fillmore reach boundary as 600 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69376, Sulfates	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

2105

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve water samples, 11 samples exceeding. (SWRCB, 2003).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan WQO: 600 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Limited. Hwy 126

Temporal Representation:

Quarterly sampling events, 2002-2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

United Water Conservation District

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	69521	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Total Dissolved Solids
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 10 of the 11 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE. 1 of the 4 samples exceed the 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 10 of 11 and 1 of 4 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69521, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

2104

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eleven water samples, 10 samples exceeding (SWRCB, 2003).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan WQO: 1,300 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Collected at Hwy. 126.

Temporal Representation:

Quarterly sampling events, 2002-2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

United Water Conservation District

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69521, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84803

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dissolved Solids.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Table 3-8 of The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region specifies the Dissolved Solids objective for Hopper Creek within the Santa Clara River's Between Blue Cut gaging station (approx. 1 mile west of LA/Ventura county line) and A Street, Fillmore reach boundary as 1300 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95839	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Aldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95839, Aldrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84799

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95780	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Ammonia
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95780, Ammonia	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84808

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Surface water shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia – Freshwater (USEPA 2013): the 30-day rolling average concentration (criterion continuous concentration or CCC) of total ammonia nitrogen(in mg TAN/L) in freshwater are not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average. The CCC values are based on pH and temperature. The CCC formula is found on page 46 and the table of CCC values is on page 49.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95379	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95379, Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84813

Pollutant:

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos Methyl.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The Azinphos methyl (Guthion) criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 0.01 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95212	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95212, Bifenthrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84818

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95601	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95601, Chlordane	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84821

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95216	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95216, Chloride	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84825

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chloride.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Table 3-8 of The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region specifies the Chloride objective for Hopper Creek within the Santa Clara River's Between Blue Cut gaging station (approx. 1 mile west of LA/Ventura county line) and A Street, Fillmore reach boundary as 100 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95602	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95602, Chlorpyrifos	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84828

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.014 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95213	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95213, Cyfluthrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84832

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin because the detection limit is greater than the guideline.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95214	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95214, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84837

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyhalothrin, lambda, total does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95215	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95215, Cypermethrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84838

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The interim freshwater criterion maximum concentration is 0.002 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	98977	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98977, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84844

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDD(p,p). Four sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The DDD(p,p) criterion for the protection of human health from fish consumption component of water contact recreation (REC-1) use is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	99699	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99699, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

96209

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDE(p,p). Four sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The DDE-4,4' criteria for the protection of human health from 30-day average fish consumption component of water contact recreation (REC-1) use is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95103	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 sample exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 sample exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95103, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84769

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p).

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95603	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Dacthal
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95603, Dacthal	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84842

Pollutant:

Dacthal

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal is 6600 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95267	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Deltamethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95267, Deltamethrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84771

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95268	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Demeton
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95268, Demeton	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84772

Pollutant:

Demeton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria lists criterion continuous concentrations for Demeton to protect aquatic life in freshwater and saltwater is 0.1 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95604	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95604, Diazinon	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84773

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95269	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Dichlorvos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95269, Dichlorvos	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84775

Pollutant:

Dichlorvos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95270	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Dicofol
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95270, Dicofol	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84776

Pollutant:

Dicofol

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dicofol.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 5.9 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95840	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95840, Dieldrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84777

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95664	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Dimethoate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95664, Dimethoate	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84784

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the median lethal concentration (LC50; 43 ug/L).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95665	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Disulfoton
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95665, Disulfoton	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84786

Pollutant:

Disulfoton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for disulfoton is 0.05 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95666	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Endosulfan
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95666, Endosulfan	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84791

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95667	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95667, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84793

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan Sulfate.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life 24 hour average maximum for endosulfan sulfate is 0.056 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95725	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Endrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95725, Endrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84801

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	79693	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Endrin aldehyde
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the waterbody-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79693, Endrin aldehyde	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

96168

Pollutant:

Endrin aldehyde

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from the fish consumption component of water contact recreation (REC-1) use is 0.81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by
the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4-2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95726	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 and 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95726, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84810

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Esfenvalerate is 0.9 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95726, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84814

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fenvalerate.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50; 1.13 ug/L).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95324	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Ethoprop
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95324, Ethoprop	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84815

Pollutant:

Ethoprop

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ethoprop.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 1.4 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95325	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Fenpropathrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95325, Fenpropathrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84816

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50; 2.2 ug/L).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95893	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95893, Heptachlor	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84819

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95894	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95894, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84823

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor Epoxide.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95727	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95727, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84829

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, gamma(Lindane).

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95728	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Malathion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95728, Malathion	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84834

Pollutant:

Malathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95488	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Methidathion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95488, Methidathion	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84835

Pollutant:

Methidathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.86 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95779	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Methoxychlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95779, Methoxychlor	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84836

Pollutant:

Methoxychlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for methoxychlor is 0.03 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95326	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Methyl Parathion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95326, Methyl Parathion	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84840

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, methyl.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The Dept. of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for methyl parathion is 0.08 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95378	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Mirex
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95378, Mirex	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84841

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneifical uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95104	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95104, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84846

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, dissolved.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-11) states that: "The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as WARM shall not be depressed below 5 mg/L as a result of waste discharges."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/19/2007-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95485	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Parathion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95485, Parathion	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84847

Pollutant:

Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Ethyl.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95486	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Permethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95486, Permethrin	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84766

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Four sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Permethrin; Permethrin, total does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95781	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Phorate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95781, Phorate	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84782

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the median lethal concentration (LC50; 2 ug/L).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95043	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Phosmet
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95043, Phosmet	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84789

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95160	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95160, Temperature, water	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84797

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than 5 deg. F above the natural temperature. At no time shall these WARM-designated waters be raised above 80 deg. F as a result of waste discharges.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/19/2007-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95044	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95044, Toxaphene	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84805

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Four sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95381	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95381, Toxicity	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84811

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sample was collected to evaluate water toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival and growth of Pimephales promelas, and cell count of Selanastrum capricornatum.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected in January 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	99961	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99961, alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

96182

Pollutant:

alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, alpha.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from 30-day average fish consumption component of water contact recreation (REC-1) use is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	99657	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99657, beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

96195

Pollutant:

beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Ag waiver data for Boulder Creek (Ventura County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, beta.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from30-day average fish consumption component of water contact recreation (REC-1) use is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.


DECISION ID	95382	Region 4
Hopper Creek

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5, 0 of 5, and 0 of 5 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95382, pH	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84767

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/19/2007-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95382, pH	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84779

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/19/2007-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95382, pH	Region 4
Hopper Creek

LOE ID:

84780

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Hopper Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hopper Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Hopper Creek on at Hwy. 126 - S04T_HOPP]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/19/2007-2/6/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group.