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

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9D80331400)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-04-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

206086

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9D80331400)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-04-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

206319

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 17 of 57 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-D22)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-15 and 2015-08-25

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

205632

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Migration

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-D22)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-15 and 2015-08-25

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

206188

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

206332

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9L80401463)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-07-28 and 2015-04-20

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

205979

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-D22)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-15 and 2015-08-25

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

205960

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Migration

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

205917

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Migration

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9L80401463)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-07-28 and 2015-04-20

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

205791

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9L80401463)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-07-28 and 2015-04-20

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

206130

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

205446

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Fish Migration

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9D80331400)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-04-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	121621	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Data for this waterbody has been considered; however, there is insufficient information to determine beneficial use support for the large and complex Delta subarea. Decisions regarding the Delta subareas will be phased out of the Integrated Report during future cycles and data will be reevaluated as part of localized assessments where data is more representative of water quality in the described segment. Due to this change, new decisions for the Delta subareas will not be assessed for the 2020/2022 cycle. Decisions regarding the beneficial use support of individual waterbodies within the Delta will be made during a future Integrated Report cycle.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review, RWQCB staff concludes that the waterbody-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient information to determine beneficial use support in this waterbody. Delta Waterways Subareas will be phased out of the Integrated Report and replaced with localized assessments where data is more representative of water quality.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121621, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

206759

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 30 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Dissolved Solids.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for total dissolved solids incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 500 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	121618	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Data for this waterbody has been considered; however, there is insufficient information to determine beneficial use support for the large and complex Delta subarea. Decisions regarding the Delta subareas will be phased out of the Integrated Report during future cycles and data will be reevaluated as part of localized assessments where data is more representative of water quality in the described segment. Due to this change, new decisions for the Delta subareas will not be assessed for the 2020/2022 cycle. Decisions regarding the beneficial use support of individual waterbodies within the Delta will be made during a future Integrated Report cycle.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review, RWQCB staff concludes that the listing decision will not change during the current cycle and the specific waterbody will be reassessed in future cycles. Assessments for Delta Subareas will be phased out of the Integrated Report during future cycles and these data will be reevaluated as part of localized assessments where data is more representative of water quality.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204290

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 89 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9D80331400)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-04-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

203852

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 7 of 31 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204820

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204467

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Delta Waterways (western portion) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 57 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH.

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-D22)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-15 and 2015-08-25

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204147

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-D22)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-15 and 2015-08-25

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

203914

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9C75861385)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-01-07 and 2016-04-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204440

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9D80331400)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-04-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62736

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Numeric data generated from 12 minimums and maximums had no exceedences.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following stations: Antioch Marina 5.1 Antioch Marina 5.2 Antioch Marina 5.3 Antioch Marina 6.1 Antioch Marina 6.2 Antioch Marina 6.3 Antioch Marina 7.1 Antioch Marina 7.2 Antioch Marina 7.3 Antioch Marina 8.1 Antioch Marina 8.2 Antioch Marina 8.3

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected once a month from July 2006 to September 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

NPDES quality assurance.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204464

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-B9D80331400)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-14 and 2016-04-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 121618, pH	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

204814

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

WQX data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (CALWR_WQX-D22)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-15 and 2015-08-25

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

STORET

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	69431	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. No new data were assessed for 2014. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69431, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4211

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	72398	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Electrical Conductivity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	The decision has not changed. No new data were assessed for 2014. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 72398, Electrical Conductivity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4212

Pollutant:

Electrical Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	95461	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Six of eight water samples tested with Americamysis bahia exhibited significant toxicity. Zero of the 26 sediment samples tested with exhibited significant toxicity. Eohaustorius estuarius did not exhibit significant toxicity for the endpoint of survival in 24 sample means. Hyalella azteca did not exhibit significant reduction in mean growth during two of the toxicity tests. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of eight water samples tested with Americamysis bahia exhibited significant toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1. 4. This waterbody was originally placed on the CWA Section 303(d) List due to toxicity to Pimephales promelas, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Selenastrum capricornutum. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95461, Toxicity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

95656

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Percent

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 26 samples exhibited significant toxicity. Eohaustorius estuarius did not exhibit significant toxicity for the endpoint of survival in 24 sample means. Hyalella azteca did not exhibit significant reduction in mean growth during two of the toxicity tests.
Data included in this assessment was not qualified and followed USEPA methodology.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. June 1994. EPA 600/R-94/025

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at San Francisco Estuary Institute sites BG20 and BG30.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected at BG20 and BG30 during winter and summer from 1996 - 1999, and during summers of 2000, 2002 - 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data collected after 1999 follows the San Francisco Estuary Institute 1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95461, Toxicity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

95652

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Percent

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six of the 8 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The organism Americamysis bahia was used for toxicity tests and the endpoint of the tests was survival. Data included in this assessment were not qualified and followed USEPA methodology.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

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. Region 5 Basin Plan.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control. For San Francisco Estuary Institute data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL_H5. (alpha = 0.05). In addition, to be counted as an exceedance, the percent effect must be greater than 20%.

Guideline Reference:

SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation

Guideline Reference:

Method 1007.0: Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia, Survival, Growth, and Fecundity Test; Chronic Toxicity. Excerpt from: Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 3rd edition EPA-821-R-02-014

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at San Francisco Estuary Institute sites BG20 and BG30.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected at BG20 and BG30 during February and July 1996, January and July 1997, and August 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data collected after 1999 follows the San Francisco Estuary Institute 1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95461, Toxicity	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4215

Pollutant:

Unknown Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	73512	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture \| 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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of twelve sample results exceed the evaluation guidelines. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of twelve sample results exceed evaluation guidelines, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2006 and approved by USEPA on 10 October 2007.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73512, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

22703

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

8 water samples were collected from San Joaquin River in March and April 2003, representing 8 4-day average concentrations and 8 1-hour average concentrations.1 of 8 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.1 of 8 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.025 ug/L.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (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 Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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

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 San Joaquin River at highway 4 and Antioch.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected weekly in March and April 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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73512, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72732

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 4 samples did not exceed the guideline.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in shellfish tissue is 1,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected at both stations on 8/27/2002 and 8/18/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73512, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

567

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	75389	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
TMDL Name:	Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Project
TMDL Project Code:	185
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	10/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of four fish fillet sample results exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of four fish fillet sample results exceed the evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2006 and approved by USEPA on 10 October 2007.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 75389, Diazinon	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

568

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 75389, Diazinon	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72733

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 4 samples did not exceed the guideline.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in shellfish tissue is 2,300 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected at both stations on 8/27/2002 and 8/18/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	74532	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agricultural Return Flows \| Atmospheric Deposition \| Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff \| Industrial Point Sources \| Municipal Point Sources \| Natural Sources \| Resource Extraction \| See TMDL documentation \| Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
TMDL Name:	Delta Methylmercury TMDL Project
TMDL Project Code:	128
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	10/20/2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the CWA section 303(d) List. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74532, Mercury	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72747

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 25 Corbicula fluminea (clam) samples exceeded the water quality objectives (WQO) for trophic level 3 and 4 fish. However, clam sample results should not be compared to WQO for fish. There are no WQO for trophic level 2 biota such as clams. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. If a dry weight result did not have a corresponding moisture result for conversion to wet weight, the sample was not included in the assessment.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

For the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Yolo Bypass waterways listed in Appendix 43, the average methylmercury concentrations shall not exceed 0.08 and 0.24 mg methylmercury/kg, wet weight, in muscle tissue of trophic level 3 and 4 fish, respectively (150-500 mm total length). (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74532, Mercury	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4214

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93596	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the thirty samples exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 CWA 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. Zero of thirty samples exceed the evaluation guideline 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93596, Cadmium	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72746

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 30 samples exceeded the screening value. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. If a dry weight result did not have a corresponding moisture result for conversion to wet weight, the sample was not included in the assessment.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in shellfish tissue is 3.3 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then then during fall 2000, 2001, and 2008 (BG20 only in 2008).

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	93750	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline California Toxics Rule (CTR) criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater for WARM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline California Toxics Rule (CTR) criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93750, Copper	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62721

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three samples exceeded the hardness adjusted CTR value for dissolved copper.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Four separate grab samples were collected from outside the Antioch Marina basin (Sites 5, 6, 7, & 8), these sites were averaged per sample event.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on three separate sampling events during the dry season (July - October) in 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Samples were collected during the dry season only.

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan that was prepared per State Water Resources Control Board Agreement No. 05-218-250 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/protocols/qapp_study236.pdf)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93886	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of four samples exceed the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal in shellfish tissue for COMM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four samples exceed the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal in shellfish tissue for COMM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93886, Endosulfan	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72737

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 4 samples exceeded the guideline. Samples were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in shellfish tissue is 20,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected during August of 2002 and 2003 at both stations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88624	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 38 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of the 38 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88624, Endrin	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72738

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 38 samples exceeded the guideline. Sample composites were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in shellfish tissue is 1,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88625	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 26 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of the 26 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88625, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72739

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 26 samples exceeded the guideline. Sample composites were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Laboratory replicates were averaged. Twelve sample were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in shellfish tissue is 1.4 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season and sometimes spring from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	100302	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 37 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of the 37 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100302, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72740

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 37 samples did exceed the guideline. Composite samples were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in shellfish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season and sometimes spring from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88700	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 36 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of the 36 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88700, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72741

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 36 samples exceeded the guideline. Composite samples were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in shellfish tissue is 7.1 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in the spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season and sometimes spring from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88701	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 6 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 6 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88701, Mirex	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72742

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 6 samples exceeded the guideline. Composite samples were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Twenty-nine sample were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) were above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in shellfish tissue is 0.43 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in the spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season and sometimes spring from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	93936	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 2,997 samples exceed the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations for MUN. 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 CWA 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. Zero of 2,997 samples exceed the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations for MUN 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93936, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62722

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

2997

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of 2997 samples collected at the sampling locations exceeded the objective for nitrate + nitrite (as N).

Data Reference:

Data for Nutrients in Region 5, Jan. 1975 - Jan. 2007.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The MCL for nitrate + nitrite (as N) is 10 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at stations D4 Sacramento River above Point Sacramento, D11 Sherman Lake near Antioch, D12 San Joaquin River @ Antioch Ship Channel, D14A Big Break near Oakley, D15 San Joaquin River @ Jersey Point, D16 San Joaquin River @ Twitchell Island, D22 Sacramento River @ Emmaton, and D24 Sacramento River below Rio Vista Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 1975 to 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected as part of a long term monitoring of water quality. No other description of the study were provided. A modified method comparable to other standard methods was used to measure results from 1996 to 2004.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93937	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of ten samples exceed the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations for MUN. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of ten samples exceed the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93937, Nitrogen, Nitrate	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62733

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, Nitrate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of 10 samples collected at the sampling location exceeded the objective for nitrite.

Data Reference:

Data for Nutrients in Region 5, Jan. 1975 - Jan. 2007.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at stations D4 Sacramento River above Point Sacramento, D11 Sherman Lake near Antioch, D14A Big Break near Oakley, D16 San Joaquin River @ Twitchell Island, D22 Sacramento River @ Emmaton, and D24 Sacramento River below Rio Vista Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 1975 to 1976.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected as part of a long term monitoring of water quality. No other description of the study were provided. None of the supporting documents describe the data collection during this time period.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93562	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of 1,854 water sample results exceed the calculated 30-day-average chronic ammonia criterion protective of fish spawning. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1,854 water sample results exceed the calculated 30-day-average chronic ammonia criterion protective of fish spawning, and this sample size is sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93562, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62734

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

1854

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of 1854 30-day averages exceeded the evaluation guideline for total ammonia as N. Ammonia samples that did not have corresponding pH and temperature data were not used to calculate averages.

Data Reference:

Data for Nutrients in Region 5, Jan. 1975 - Jan. 2007.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA recommended freshwater aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia is based on pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages of fish. The continuous concentration used is based on a 30-day average.

Guideline Reference:

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 1975 to 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected as part of a long term monitoring of water quality. No other descriptions of the study were provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	88702	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the water quality objective for WARM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the water quality objective for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88702, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62735

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Numeric data generated from 12 minimums of Dissolved Oxygen concentrations had no exceedences.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Objective of all surface waters designated as Warm Fresh Water Aquatic Habitat shall not be depressed below 5 mg/l.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected once a month from August 2006 to October 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

NPDES quality assurance.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93938	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 31 samples exceed the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal in shellfish tissue for COMM. 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 CWA 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.Zero of 31 samples exceed the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal in shellfish tissue for COMM 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93938, Selenium	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72748

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 31 samples exceeded the screening value. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. If a dry weight result did not have a corresponding moisture result for conversion to wet weight, the sample was not included in the assessment.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in shellfish tissue is 11 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then then during fall 2000, 2001, and 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88781	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88781, Toxaphene	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72743

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 6 samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) were above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Composite samples were comprised of Corbicula fluminea.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in shellfish tissue is 6.5 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected in August during years 2002 and 2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88782	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 24 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of the 24 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM 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.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88782, Tributyltin TBT (Tributylstanne)	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72749

Pollutant:

Tributyltin TBT (Tributylstanne)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 24 samples exceeded the screening value. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Four samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. If a dry weight result did not have a corresponding moisture result for conversion to wet weight, the sample was not included in the assessment.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for tributyltin in shellfish tissue is 1 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then then during fall 2000 and 2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	93539	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater for WARM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93539, Zinc	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

62737

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three samples exceeded the hardness dependent CTR value for dissolved zinc in freshwater.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Four separate grab samples were collected from outside the Antioch Marina basin (Sites 5, 6, 7, & 8), these sites were averaged per sample event.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on three separate sampling events during the dry season (July - October) in 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Samples were collected during the dry season only.

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93888	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Arsenic
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty-four of 24 samples exceed the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal in shellfish tissue for COMM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-four of 24 samples exceed the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal in shellfish tissue for COMM and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93888, Arsenic	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72731

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Arsenic levels in the 24 Corbicula (freshwater clam) tissue samples exceeded the screening value. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Ten percent of the total arsenic result was used to estimate of the amount of inorganic arsenic in the sample; this number was screened against the guideline. If a dry weight result did not have a corresponding moisture result for conversion to wet weight, the sample was not included in the assessment.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in shellfish tissue is 0.0052 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2004)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then then during fall 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88622	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the 34 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of the 34 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88622, Chlordane	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72734

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four of the 34 samples did exceed the guideline. Four samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in shellfish tissue is 6.0 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season only from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	88623	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eighteen of the 35 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Eighteen of the 35 samples exceed the water quality objective for COMM and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88623, Dieldrin	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

72736

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighteen of the 35 samples did exceed the guideline. Composite sample were comprised of Corbicula fluminea. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Laboratory replicates were averaged. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Three samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Regional Monitoring Program data, Feb. 1993-Sep. 2008

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in shellfish tissue is 0.49 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following stations: BG20 - Sacramento River and BG30 - San Joaquin River.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were generally collected in spring and fall seasons from years 1993 - 1999 and then during fall season from years 2000 - 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

1999 Quality Assurance Project Plan Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances


DECISION ID	71955	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Group A Pesticides
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71955, Group A Pesticides	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

4213

Pollutant:

Group A Pesticides

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	78168	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

Pollutant:	Invasive Species
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollution

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement in Category 4c as impaired by pollution under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There have been numerous studies since the late 1960's showing sharp declines in phytoplankton biomass and in native species, such as the delta smelt, which has declined ten-fold over the last 20 years. Non-native species are believed to be responsible for this alteration in the Delta food web and extirpating native species. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in Category 4c as impaired by pollution. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. There are numerous studies since the late 1960's. 2. Baseline data is from data acquired from these earlier studies. 3. Trends were determined using statistical analyses on graphs and tables. 4. Summer chlorophyll-a decreased markedly after invasion of the non-native Asian clam. Phytoplankton is a significant source during the spring and summer for many species in the Delta. 5. Phytoplankton biomass has declined over the past few decades, affecting food biomass availability for higher tropic levels. Some non-native species compete with zooplankton for food, or alter species composition of the food web. In areas where non-natives are abundant, native fishes are rare or absent. 6. It cannot be determined if the trend in water quality is expected to meet water standards by the next listing cycle. 7. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78168, Invasive Species	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

565

Pollutant:

Invasive Species

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Not Specified

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board. Taken from Region 5 Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

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

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

Peer Reviewed Journal Article and Reports.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78168, Invasive Species	Region 5
Delta Waterways (western portion)

LOE ID:

566

Pollutant:

Invasive Species

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives.)

Objective/Criterion Reference: