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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Marsh Creek (Marsh Creek Reservoir to San Joaquin River; partly in Delta Waterways, western portion)
Water Body ID: | CAR5430002019980814110539
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 13891
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 50 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 13891

LOE ID: | 22208
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 7
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 8 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from September 2005 through June 2006 representing 7 concentrations. 1 sample had concentrations detected but not quantified (DNQ). 0 of 7 concentrations exceeded the maximum value (0.00093 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: | 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 Board will use the best available technicalinformation to evaluate compliance with the narrative objectives. - the Board will consider one tenth of 96 hour LC50 for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life (CRWQCB, 2006). The one tenth of 96 hour LC50 tested on the most sensitive species in freshwater is 0.00093 ug/L (ECOTOX, 2008).
Guideline Reference: | Ecotox database, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/
Spatial Representation: | Marsh Creek at Balfour Avenue and Concord Avenue.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at various intervals (monthly) from September 2005 through June 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22207
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin
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 Assess Water Quality: | 16 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from February through April 2004, representing 12 concentrations. 4 samples had concentrations less than the quantitation limits (0.05 ug/L),0 of 12 available concentrations exceeded the maximum value (0.00093 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 (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
Evaluation Guideline: | The Board will use the best available technicalinformation to evaluate compliance with the narrative objectives. - the Board will consider one tenth of 96 hour LC50 for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life (CRWQCB, 2006). The one tenth of 96 hour LC50 tested on the most sensitive species in freshwater is 0.00093 ug/L (ECOTOX, 2008).
Guideline Reference: | Ecotox database, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Cypress Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily during two storm events in February 2004 and weekly in March and April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 22206
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 31
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 33 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek between June 2002 and May 2003, representing 31 concentrations. 2 samples had concentrations less than the quantitation limits (0.05 ug/L),0 of 31 available concentrations exceeded the maximum value (0.00093 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 (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
Evaluation Guideline: | The Board will use the best available technicalinformation to evaluate compliance with the narrative objectives. - the Board will consider one tenth of 96 hour LC50 for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life (CRWQCB, 2006). The one tenth of 96 hour LC50 tested on the most sensitive species in freshwater is 0.00093 ug/L (ECOTOX, 2008).
Guideline Reference: | Ecotox database, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Cypress Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily during two storms from January through February 2003, and weekly from June to December 2002 and from March to May 2003.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 | 13893
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
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 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 37 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 49 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion 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 13893

LOE ID: | 22237
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 10
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 16 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from February through March 2004, representing 10 4-day average concentrations and 16 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 10 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.0 of 16 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.025 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 (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
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Cypress Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily during two storm events in February 2004 and weekly in March and April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 22236
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 27
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 33 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek between June 2002 and May 2003, representing 27 4-day average concentrations and 33 1-hour average concentrations.1 of 27 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L. 0 of 33 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.025 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 (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 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Cypress Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily during two storms from January through February 2003, and weekly from June to December 2002 and from March to May 2003.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 | 13899
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
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 California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00083 μg/L for DDD based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms 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 13899

LOE ID: | 22179
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two water samples were taken from Marsh Creek on 16 May and 20 June of 2006. None of the two samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00083 ug/L for DDD based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms.
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: | - Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007a)Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000)Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) for DDD of 0.00083 ug/L.
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 Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue, California.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 16 May 2006 and 20 June 2006 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 | 13900
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
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. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 2 samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 μg/L for DDE based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms 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 13900

LOE ID: | 22191
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two water samples were taken from Marsh Creek on 16 May and 20 June of 2006. One of the two samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDD based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms.
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: | - Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007a)Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000)Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) for DDE of 0.00059 ug/L.
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 Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue, California.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 16 May 2006 and 20 June 2006 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 | 13901
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
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. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 2 samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 μg/L for DDT based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms 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 13901

LOE ID: | 22192
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two water samples were taken from Marsh Creek on 16 May and 20 June of 2006. One of the two samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule/USEPA (CTR/USEPA) criteria limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDT based on a human health carcinogenic risk level of 10-6 for consumption of water and aquatic organisms.
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: | - Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007a)Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000)Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) for DDT of 0.00059 ug/L.
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 Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue, California.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 16 May 2006 and 20 June 2006 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 | 13895
Pollutant: | Methidathion
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. 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 47 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 13895

LOE ID: | 22194
Pollutant: | Methidathion
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 15
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 15 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from February 2004 through April 2004 representing 15 concentrations.0 of 15 concentrations exceeded the maximum concentration of 0.22 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. (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
Evaluation Guideline: | The Board will use the best available technical information to evaluate compliance with the narrative objectives. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative objectives. (CRWQCB, 2006).The 96 hour LC50 for the most sensitive species Lepomis macrochrius is 2.2 ug/L (USEPA Ecotox database, 2008).
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 Marsh Creek at Cypress.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily during two storms in February 2004, and at variable intervals (biweekly, weekly, monthly) from February 2004 through April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 22193
Pollutant: | Methidathion
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 32
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 32 water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from June 2002 through May 2003 representing 32 concentrations.0 of 324 concentrations exceeded the maximum concentration of 0.22 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 (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
Evaluation Guideline: | The Board will use the best available technical information to evaluate compliance with the narrative objectives. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative objectives. (CRWQCB, 2006).The 96 hour LC50 for the most sensitive species Lepomis macrochrius is 2.2 ug/L (USEPA Ecotox database, 2008).
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 Marsh Creek at Cypress.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during two storms in January 2003 and February 2003 and daily at variable intervals (biweekly, weekly, monthly) from June 2002 through May 2003.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 | 13897
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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 19 samples fell below the minimum criterion water quality objective listed in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13897

LOE ID: | 22238
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 19
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nineteen samples were taken from Marsh Creek between 2005 and 2006. None of the nineteen 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 (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/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 Marsh Creek at Balfour Road, Concord Avenue and Marsh Creek Road in Contra Costa County.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between February 2005 and March 2006. 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 | 13887
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 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. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 18 samples exceeded the pH objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13887

LOE ID: | 22249
Pollutant: | pH
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 18
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The San Joaquin Co Delta Water Quality Coalition collected 18 samples from February 2005 to June 2006. One out of 18 sample was outside the acceptable range; the sample was higher than the acceptable range.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations: Marsh Creek at Balfour Avenue, Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue, and Marsh Creek at Marsh Creek Road.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from February 2005 to June 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12711
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 | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
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 14 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 12711

LOE ID: | 22239
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 14
Number of Exceedances: | 12
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The San Joaquin CO Delta Water Quality Coalition collected 14 samples from February 2005 to June 2006. Twelve out of 14 samples exceeded the evaluation objective.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986).
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at two locations: Marsh Creek at Balfour Avenue and Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from February 2005 to June 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12706
Pollutant: | Sediment 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: | Agriculture | Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
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 4 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective 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 12706

LOE ID: | 22180
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Sediment
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 4
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the 4 samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Three samples collected at Balfour Avenue exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:19 July 2005(0)20 September 2005 (0)27 April 2006 (58)
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: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Balfour Avenue and Concord Avenue.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2005 to April 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12708
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: | Agriculture | Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
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. 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. Two of 15 samples tested with ceriodaphnia exceed the narrative toxicity objective 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 12708

LOE ID: | 22240
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 13 samples tested with Pimephales promelas was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:20 September 2005 (87)
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue and Balfour Avenue.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February 2005 to June 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22250
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 13 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue and Balfour Avenue.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February 2005 to June 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22253
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 15
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 2 of the 15 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Two samples collected at Balfour Avenue exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:21 June 2005 (47)15 March 2006 (65)
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Marsh Creek at Concord Avenue and Balfour Avenue.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February 2005 to June 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12712
Pollutant: | Diazinon
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Agriculture | Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
TMDL Name: | Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Project
TMDL Project Code: | 185
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 10/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
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. 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 32 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration in the Basin Plan water quality objective. These exceedances ocurred more than once within a three year period, which is more frequent than allowable under the water quality objective. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 5. A TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2006 and approved by USEPA on 10 October 2007.
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 After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem, and a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12712

LOE ID: | 22209
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 22
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-two water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from June 2002 through May 2003, representing 22 4-day average concentrations and 32 1-hour average concentrations.2 of 22 four-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 ug/L.2 of 32 one-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.160 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 (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 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (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 from Marsh Creek at Cypress Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from June through December 2002, daily during a storm in January and a storm in February 2003, biweekly in March 2003, and weekly during April and May 2003.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Fair to poor. 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: | 22221
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 6
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from March through April 2004, representing 6 4-day average concentrations and 6 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 6 four-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 ug/L.0 of 6 one-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.160 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 (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 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (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: | Marsh Creek at Cypress Road
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected weekly from March 4, 2004 to April 8, 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 22220
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 Assess Water Quality: | Ten water samples were collected from Marsh Creek from January - February 2004, representing 4 4-day average concentrations and 10 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 4 four-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 ug/L.0 of 10 one-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.160 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 (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 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (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: | Marsh Creek at Cypress Road
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at daily intervals during two storm events in January and February 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 | 7419
Pollutant: | Mercury
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
Sources: | Resource Extraction | Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2015
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7419

LOE ID: | 4474
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Not Recorded
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified
QAPP Information: | Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):