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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Pixley Slough (San Joaquin County; partly in Delta Waterways, eastern portion)
Water Body ID: | CAR5312000020080803212723
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 10248
Pollutant: | Arsenic
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | "This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 13 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule for Cold Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is also based on staff findings that 0 of 17 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA Primary MCL for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met."
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10248

LOE ID: | 8557
Pollutant: | Arsenic
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the 13 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Arsenic.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Dissolved Arsenic levels should not exceed 340 ug/L maximum concentration for 1-hour average (CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 26 2001 to Oct 29 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 20295
Pollutant: | Arsenic
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 17
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Arsenic.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Arsenic levels should not exceed 10 ug/L (USEPA Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 26 2001 to Jun 24 2003
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10250
Pollutant: | Boron
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 20 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 20 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10250

LOE ID: | 20773
Pollutant: | Boron
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 20
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 20 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Boron.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Boron levels should not exceed 1000 ug/L (Department of Health Services Health Advisory)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Jun 24 2003
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10252
Pollutant: | Cadmium
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | "This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 11 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule for Cold Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is also based on staff findings that 0 of 17 available concentrations exceeded the Department of Public Health Primary MCL for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met."
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10252

LOE ID: | 20445
Pollutant: | Cadmium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 17
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Cadmium.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Cadmium levels should not exceed 5 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 26 2001 to Jun 24 2003
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 8559
Pollutant: | Cadmium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 11
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the 11 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Cadmium.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Dissolved Cadmium levels should not exceed the calculated limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average dissolved)=(EXP(1.128*LN(hardness)-3.6867))*(1.136672-(LN(hardness)*0.041838)) (CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Aug 28 2001 to Oct 29 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10254
Pollutant: | Chloride
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 20 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 20 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10254

LOE ID: | 20774
Pollutant: | Chloride
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 20
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 20 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Chloride.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Chloride levels should not exceed 250 mg/L (USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Jun 24 2003
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10255
Pollutant: | Chromium (total)
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 23 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10255

LOE ID: | 20489
Pollutant: | Chromium (total)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 23
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 23 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Chromium.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Chromium levels should not exceed 50 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Jun 24 2003
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 14876
Pollutant: | Dimethoate
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for the narrative toxicity water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 29 daily-averaged sample results had a level of dimethoate that exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for dimethoate of 0.2 ug/L and, therefore, exceeded the narrative toxicity objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 14876

LOE ID: | 26182
Pollutant: | Dimethoate
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 21
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twenty-seven individual water samples were collected from Pixley Slough, under the Irrigated Lands Reporting Program, at two sites, between July 2004 and July 2005. Since six of the samples collected at Eightmile Road were duplicates, there are 21 daily-averaged dimethoate results. One of the 21 water samples (collected at Eightmile Road on July 28, 2004) exceeded the Evaluation Guideline of 0.2 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Where valid testing has developed 96 hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms (the concentration that kills one half of the test organisms in 96 hours), the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and the organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative objectives. The one-tenth of 96-hour LC50 value for dimethoate for the most sensitive species in freshwater (Cyclops strenuus, a copepod crustacean), is 0.2 µg/L.
Guideline Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| ECOTOX database, aquatic data. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected from Pixley Sough at Eightmile Road on July 14 and 28, 2004; August 11 and 25, 2004; September 8, 2004; daily from January 27 to February 1, 2005; February 4, 15, and 16, 2005; June 16 and 30, 2005; and July 14 and 28, 2005. Water samples were collected from Pixley Sough at Ham Lane on June 16 and 30, 2005, and on July 14 and 28, 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826 ) requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 26183
Pollutant: | Dimethoate
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 8
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Eight individual water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Ham Lane, under the Pesticide TMDL program between January and April 2006. None of the 8 water samples exceeded the dimethoate Evaluation Guideline of 0.2 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Where valid testing has developed 96 hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms (the concentration that kills one half of the test organisms in 96 hours), the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and the organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative objectives. The one-tenth of 96-hour LC50 value for dimethoate for the most sensitive species in freshwater (Cyclops strenuus, a copepod crustacean), is 0.2 µg/L.
Guideline Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| ECOTOX database, aquatic data. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected from Pixley Sough at Ham Lane on: January 14 and 15, 2006; February 28, 2006; March 1, 14, and 28,, 2006; and April 11 and 25, 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports

DECISION ID | 13563
Pollutant: | Malathion
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded criterion continuous concentration (CCC) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 27 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy and also does not exceed the CMC more than once every three years (Section 3.11 of Listing Policy). 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13563

LOE ID: | 21852
Pollutant: | Malathion
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 27 water samples were collected from Pixley Slough from July 2004 through July 2005, representing 16 4-day average concentrations and 27 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 16 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day CMC (0.43 µg/L).0 of 27 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the CCC (0.1 µg/L).
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Quality Criteria for Water. USEPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C
Evaluation Guideline: | US EPA recommended criterion continuous concentration (CCC) 0.1 µg/L (US EPA, 1976). California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criterion is 0.43 µg/L for criterion maximum concentration (CMC) (CDFG, 1998)
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Malathion to Aquatic Life in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response Administrative Report 98-2
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and at Ham Ln.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. daily or two-weekly, monthly) from July 2004 through July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10258
Pollutant: | Nickel
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 17 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA Primary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 15 available concentrations exceeded the California Toxics Rule and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10258

LOE ID: | 8563
Pollutant: | Nickel
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 15
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the 15 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Nickel.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Dissolved Nickel levels should not exceed the calculated limit based on the formula: Criteria Maximum Concentration (1-hour Average, dissolved)=(EXP(0.846*LN(hardness)+2.255))*(0.998)(CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Feb 20 2001 to Oct 29 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 20495
Pollutant: | Nickel
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 23
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 23 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Nickel.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Nickel levels should not exceed 100 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Jun 24 2003
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10260
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 9 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA Primary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 9 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10260

LOE ID: | 8564
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 9
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the 9 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate-N.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Nitrate-N levels should not to exceed 100 mg/L (USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective)
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology. 4304T
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Oct 23 2001
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 21018
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 9
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 9 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Nitrate-N.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Nitrate-N levels should not exceed 45 mg/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Oct 23 2001
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 13565
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13565

LOE ID: | 23005
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Sediment
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the two samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | ¿All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.¿ (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eight Mile Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from April 2005 to August 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10262
Pollutant: | Selenium
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that only 1 sample is available and a minimum of 2 samples is needed for evaluation under section 3.1 for the Municipal Beneficial Use and for the Cold Water Habitat. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10262

LOE ID: | 8566
Pollutant: | Selenium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 1
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Selenium levels should not to exceed 5 ug/L (CTR)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 29 2002 to Oct 29 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 20286
Pollutant: | Selenium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 1
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 1 sample collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Selenium levels should not exceed 50 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on Oct 29 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10263
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 56 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 56 has 10 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10263

LOE ID: | 20971
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 56
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 56 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Specific Conductivity.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL recommended level of 900 uS/cm. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007a).The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The recommended concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses.
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Nov 29 2005
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 10265
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 10 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 10 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 10265

LOE ID: | 20394
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 10
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 0 of the 10 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Total Dissolved Solids.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL recommended level of 500 mg/L. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007a).The secondary MCLs for TDS provide a range of values including a recommended level (500 mg/L), upper level (1000 mg/L) and a short-term level (1500 mg/L). The recommended concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses.
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Oct 29 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 13561
Pollutant: | Zinc
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples exceeded the 4-day maximum criterion for total zinc and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13561

LOE ID: | 21853
Pollutant: | Zinc
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twelve samples were taken from Pixley Slough between 2004 and 2005. None of the twelve samples exceeds guidelines for total zinc. No samples exceed the 4-day average concentration levels.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula (e{.8473xLN[hardness]}+.884) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 97 (Thursday, 18 May 2000), pp. 31682-31719 [California Toxics Rule]; and Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 30 (Tuesday, 13 February 2001), pp. 9960-9962 [California Toxics Rule Correction] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and Ham Lane in San Joaquin County.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between July 2004 and July 2005. Samples were collected at monthly and bi-monthly intervals.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 9170
Pollutant: | pH
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 2 of 55 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 55 has 10 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9170

LOE ID: | 8565
Pollutant: | pH
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 55
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Two of the 55 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. The exceeded results are as follows: 6/23/2004 - a sample taken at Pixley Slough at Davis Road had a result of 9.4none. 7/28/2004 - a sample taken at Pixley Slough at Davis Road had a result of 8.8none.
Data Reference: | San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (Basin Plan Objective)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Oct 24 2000 to Nov 29 2005
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12552
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of 24 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 11 of 35 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12552

LOE ID: | 23019
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 4
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected from Pixley Slough during two winter storms in 2006, representing two 4-day average concentrations and 4 1-hour average concentrations.2 of 4 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum hourly diazinon concentration of 0.025 µg/L1 of 2 4-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 µg/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 µg/L 4-day average and 0.025 µg/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at daily intervals during two storm events in 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Calanchini, H. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. Final. SWAMP Project ID 02TM5001 (Revision 0.0). John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA. January 26, 2006
LOE ID: | 23021
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 5
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twenty-three water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and four samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Ham Lane in 2004 and 2005, representing 16 4-day average concentrations and 27 1-hour average concentrations.5 of 16 four-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.9 of 27 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.025 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 µg/L 4-day average and 0.025 µg/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005)
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road (23 samples) and Pixley Slough at Ham Lane (4 samples)
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected bimonthly in July and August 2004, one time in September 2004, and twice daily for four days during a storm in January 2005. Additionally, samples were collected twice daily for two days in February, and during two other days in February. Samples were also collected bimonthly in June and July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 23020
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 4
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at biweekly intervals, representing four 4-day average concentrations and four 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 4 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum hourly diazinon concentration of 0.025 µg/L.0 of 4 4-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 µg/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 µg/L 4-day average and 0.025 µg/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at biweekly intervals in March and April 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Calanchini, H. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. Final. SWAMP Project ID 02TM5001 (Revision 0.0). John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA. January 26, 2006

DECISION ID | 12551
Pollutant: | Copper
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 12 samples exceed the 4-day maximum criterion for total copper and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12551

LOE ID: | 22992
Pollutant: | Copper
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twelve samples were taken from Pixley Slough between 2004 and 2005. Three of the twelve samples exceed guidelines for total copper. Three samples exceed the 4-day average concentration levels.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the fallowing formula (e{.8545xLN[hardness]}-1.702) which incorporates hardnessU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 97 (Thursday, 18 May 2000), pp. 31682-31719 [California Toxics Rule]; and Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 30 (Tuesday, 13 February 2001), pp. 9960-9962 [California Toxics Rule Correction] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and Ham Lane in San Joaquin County.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between July 2004 and July 2005. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12550
Pollutant: | Diazinon
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2022
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 22 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 13 of 35 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12550

LOE ID: | 22952
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected from Pixley Slough during two winter storms in 2006, representing two 4-day average concentrations and 4 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 4 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum hourly diazinon concentration of 0.160 µg/L2 of 2 4-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 µg/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 µg/L 1-hour average and 0.100 µg/L 4-day average concentration (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at daily intervals during two storm events in 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Calanchini, H. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. Final. SWAMP Project ID 02TM5001 (Revision 0.0). John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA. January 26, 2006
LOE ID: | 22953
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 4
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at biweekly intervals, representing four 4-day average concentrations and four 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 4 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum hourly diazinon concentration of 0.160 µg/L0 of 4 4-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 µg/L
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007). All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 µg/L 1-hour average and 0.100 µg/L 4-day average concentration (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at biweekly intervals in March and April 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Calanchini, H. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. Final. SWAMP Project ID 02TM5001 (Revision 0.0). John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA. January 26, 2006
LOE ID: | 22954
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twenty-three water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and four samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Ham Lane in 2004 and 2005, representing 16 4-day average concentrations and 27 1-hour average concentrations.3 of 16 four-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 µg/L.13 of 27 one-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration guideline of 0.160 µg/L.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007). All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 µg/L 1-hour average and 0.100 µg/L 4-day average concentration (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
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: | Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road (23 samples) and Pixley Slough at Ham Lane (4 samples)
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected bimonthly in July and August 2004, one time in September 2004, and twice daily for four days during a storm in January 2005. Additionally, samples were collected twice daily for two days in February, and during two other days in February. Samples were also collected bimonthly in June and July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 14400
Pollutant: | Disulfoton
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Agriculture
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of 35 water samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Disulfoton Criterion for freshwater aquatic life protection, maximum concentration of 0.05 ug/L), and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 14400

LOE ID: | 26118
Pollutant: | Disulfoton
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 27
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twenty-seven water samples were collected from Pixley Slough, under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, between July 2004 and July 2005. Four of the 27 samples exceeded the Evaluation guideline of 0.05 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Disulfoton Criterion for freshwater aquatic life protection, maximum concentration of 0.05 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Ham Lane and at Eightmile Road.
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected from Pixley Slough daily, every other week, or monthly between July 2004 and July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826 ) requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 26117
Pollutant: | Disulfoton
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 8
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Eight water samples were collected from Pixley Slough, under the Pesticide TMDL program, between January and April 2006. Three of the 8 samples exceeded the Evaluation guideline of 0.05 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Criterion for freshwater aquatic life protection, maximum concentration of 0.05 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected from Pixley Slough on 14 and 15 January 2006, 28 February 2006, 1 March 2006, and 11 and 25 April 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. All sampling, analysis and QA/QC protocols are described in a QAPP (Calanchini et al., 2006).
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12549
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sixteen of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Sixteen of 30 samples exceed the E. Coli objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12549

LOE ID: | 23004
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 30
Number of Exceedances: | 16
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 30 samples from July 2002 to November 2005. Sixteen out of 30 samples exceeded the evaluation objective.
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986).
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from July 2002 to November 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

DECISION ID | 12547
Pollutant: | Lead
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Ten of 12 samples exceed the 4-day maximum criterion for total lead and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12547

LOE ID: | 25564
Pollutant: | Lead
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 10
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twelve samples were taken from Pixley Slough between 2004 and 2005. Ten of the twelve samples exceed guidelines for total lead. Ten samples exceed the 4-day average concentration levels.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula (e{1.273xLN[hardness]}-4.705)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals - 2007 for toxicity data
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Pixley Slough at Eight Mile Road and Pixley Slough at Hammer Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred between July 2004 and July 2005
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring Reporting Program Order No. R5-2003-0826 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105 Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12426
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twelve of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twelve of 29 samples fell below the minimum criterion water quality objective listed in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12426

LOE ID: | 23003
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 29
Number of Exceedances: | 12
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Twenty-nine samples were taken from Pixley Slough between 2004 and 2005. Twelve of the twenty-nine samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (COLD) Cold Freshwater Habitat is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 7mg/L
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and Ham Lane in San Joaquin County.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between July 2004 and August 2005. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12425
Pollutant: | Simazine
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 27 samples available concentrations exceeded drinking water standard (4 µg/L) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12425

LOE ID: | 23007
Pollutant: | Simazine
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 27
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 27 water samples were collected from Pixley Slough from July 2004 through July 2005, representing 27 concentrations. 2 of 27 concentrations exceeded MCL (4 µg/L).
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this plan: Tables 64431-A (Inorganic Chemicals) and 64431-B (Fluoride) of Section 64431, Table 64444-A (Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444, and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Consumer Acceptance Limits) and 64449-B (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449. The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for simazine is 4 ug/L.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. daily, biweekly) from July 2004 through July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12548
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 25 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective for fathead minnow and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 25 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective for ceriodaphnia and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Lastly, 1 of 13 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective for selenastrum and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12548

LOE ID: | 21855
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | None of the 12 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | ¿All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.¿ (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a Fisher Exact analysis with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from November 2004 to November 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
LOE ID: | 23006
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | One of 13 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:08 September 2004 (78)
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | ¿All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.¿ (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from two locations: Pixley Slough at Eightmile Road and Pixley Slough at Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2004 to July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 23008
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | None of the 13 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | ¿All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.¿ (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eight Mile Road and Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2004 to July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 23018
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Three of the 12 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Three samples collected at Davis Road exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:26 April 2005(88)24 May 2005 (88)28 June 2005 (85)
Data Reference: | Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a Fisher's Exact test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Davis Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from November 2004 to November 2005
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
LOE ID: | 21854
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Zero of the 13 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | ¿All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.¿ (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pixley Slough at Eight Mile Road and Ham Lane.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in July 2004 to July 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):