Water Body Name: | Blanco Drain |
Water Body ID: | CAR3091101019981209161509 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
108066 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
TMDL Name: | Lower Salinas River Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL |
TMDL Project Code: | 133 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 10/07/2011 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Under 4.6, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE number 14036 was removed from this decision because the data quality associated with those data do not meet the requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy and many issues were identified in the data. For lines of evidence where the fraction is “not recorded” or "none" staff assumed that the fraction is “total”, based on the analytical method, and the sample and exceedance counts are summed for the purpose of making this decision. For lines of evidence where the fraction is “dissolved” staff has summed the exceedance and sample counts independently. Two of 30 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005) set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Zero of nine water samples where the fraction is "dissolved" exceeded the aquatic life evaluation guideline. Zero of six sediment samples exceeded the aquatic life evaluation guideline (Amweg and Weston, 2007). For the sediment samples only, 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 supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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. Two of 30 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Lower Salinas River Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL has been approved by the USEPA on October 7, 2011. 5. 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 be removed from the section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215305 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (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 | ||||
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 (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215516 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53415 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 15078 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Department of Pesticide Regulation_Lower Salinas (DPR) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | e-mail providing Standard operating procedures and Quality Assurance information | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
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: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA-COO_DPR - Blanco Drain at Cooper Rd, ca 0.2 mi. S of Nashua Rd, drains to Salinas R.] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 15108 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
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: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/23/2006-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 161593 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (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 | ||||
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 (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53560 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for CHLORPYRIFOS. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48040 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (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 (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/14/2007-9/25/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215307 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (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 | ||||
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 (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-02 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125652 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
TMDL Name: | Salinas River Nutrients |
TMDL Project Code: | 87 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 10/13/2015 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of 172 samples exceed the water quality objective for warm freshwater habitat (Basin Plan). Note that there is no difference between samples fractions ‘dissolved’ and ‘total,’ therefore sample and exceedance counts will be summed for the purpose of this decision. Previous decisions (pre-2020) included dissolved oxygen saturation LOEs as ancillary evidence. This decision will no longer include dissolved oxygen saturation and these LOEs will be retired next cycle. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) List. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Therefore, the data support the conclusion that the aquatic life beneficial use is fully supported 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 172 samples exceed the warm freshwater habitat objective. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215419 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 103 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 103 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-04-29 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215420 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 47905 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Region 3 - Central Coast Region staff assessed R3 public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008 4:00:00 PM-10/28/2009 4:30:00 PM. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | A QAPP was not specifically written for this project. However, staff conducting data collection and laboratory analysis are also SWAMP contractors. All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14513 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 25 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48044 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 36 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
130033 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) List under sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the 303(d) List. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One LOE summarizes water samples. Three of three water samples exceed the DDD evaluation guideline (California Toxics Rule, 2000), set to protect for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or other organisms, beneficial uses. Four LOEs summarize sediment samples. Seven of eight sediment samples exceed the DDD evaluation guideline (MacDonald et al., 2000a) set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. These samples are associated with sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of three water samples, and seven of the eight sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines and these samples are associated with sediment toxicity, and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53569 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDD(p,p). Six sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59004 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the three samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included growth and survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location. Significant toxicity to Hyalella azteca was reported for samples collected on 4/5/07 and 4/17/09. It should be noted that the samples collected in 2006, that were in the data file associated with this LOE, are not included in this LOE because they were included in the previous assessment cycle. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | A significant effect is determined by a statistical test. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Blanco Drain (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from annually from April 2007 to April 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. QAPP for the Cooperative Monitoring program for Agriculture in Region 3. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Comments on the 2010 Integrated Report for Ormond Beach and Calleguas Creek. Oxnard, CA: City of Oxnard, Public Works Department | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53570 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53552 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the three samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. Statistically significant effects on Hyalella azteca were observed in samples collected on 0/30/2008 and 10/28/2009. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity was defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. In the SWAMP data format, a Significance Effect Code of SL denotes toxic test results. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Station 309BLA - Blanco Drain at old pump house. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in July and October 2008 and October 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53571 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. Data assessed were suspended sediment samples isolated from the whole water sample. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215539 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDD from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDD is 28 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215540 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDD from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDD is 28 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 of the 1 samples collected by SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215559 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 7 samples collected by RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-29 and 2018-04-25. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
130092 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) List under sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the 303(d) List. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four LOEs summarize sediment samples. Eight of eight sediment samples exceed the DDE evaluation guideline (MacDonald et al., 2000a) set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. These samples are associated with toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates 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. 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. Eight of eight sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines and these samples are associated with sediment toxicity. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59004 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the three samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included growth and survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location. Significant toxicity to Hyalella azteca was reported for samples collected on 4/5/07 and 4/17/09. It should be noted that the samples collected in 2006, that were in the data file associated with this LOE, are not included in this LOE because they were included in the previous assessment cycle. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | A significant effect is determined by a statistical test. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Blanco Drain (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from annually from April 2007 to April 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. QAPP for the Cooperative Monitoring program for Agriculture in Region 3. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Comments on the 2010 Integrated Report for Ormond Beach and Calleguas Creek. Oxnard, CA: City of Oxnard, Public Works Department | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53573 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. Data assessed were suspended sediment samples isolated from the whole water sample. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53572 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53552 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the three samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. Statistically significant effects on Hyalella azteca were observed in samples collected on 0/30/2008 and 10/28/2009. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity was defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. In the SWAMP data format, a Significance Effect Code of SL denotes toxic test results. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Station 309BLA - Blanco Drain at old pump house. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in July and October 2008 and October 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215536 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDE from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDE is 31.3 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215544 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDE from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDE is 31.3 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215559 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 7 samples collected by RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-29 and 2018-04-25. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 of the 1 samples collected by SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125664 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. A total of five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. A total of 99 of 204 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed 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. A total of 99 of 204 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215413 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Turbidities of 40 NTU or greater can cause a reduced foraging efficiency and a shift in prey selection in piscivorous fish (largemouth bass) due to interference with their ability to find prey (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215414 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 101 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 39 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 39 of 101 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Turbidities of 40 NTU or greater can cause a reduced foraging efficiency and a shift in prey selection in piscivorous fish (largemouth bass) due to interference with their ability to find prey (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-04-29 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 13681 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 17 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 17 of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Blanco drain at Cooper Rd, Pump station] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/29/2002-10/21/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14669 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 22 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 22 of 26 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48049 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 21 of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Turbidities of 40 NTU or greater can cause a reduction in piscivorous fish (largemouth bass) growth due to interference with their ability to find food (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-6/30/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
108067 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture |
TMDL Name: | Lower Salinas River Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL |
TMDL Project Code: | 133 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 10/07/2011 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Under 4.6, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE number 13887 was removed from this decision because the data quality associated with this data do not meet the requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy and many issues were identified in the data. Eleven of 38 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. This sample size is sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating of "not supporting" and does not meet the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Zero of 3 sediment samples exceeded the aquatic life evaluation guideline (Ding et al. 2011). This sample size is insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating 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. In accordance with section 2.2 of the Policy, there is sufficient justification for this water segment-pollutant combination to remain on the Being Addressed portion of the CWA section 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA. 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. Eleven of 38 water samples exceed the aquatic life evaluation guideline and this does not meet the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Lower Salinas River Watershed Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL has been approved by the USEPA on October 7, 2011. 5. 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. Furthermore, this pollutant waterbody combination should be placed in the 'Being Addressed' portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 15109 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
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: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/23/2006-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 15116 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Department of Pesticide Regulation_Lower Salinas (DPR) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | e-mail providing Standard operating procedures and Quality Assurance information | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
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: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA-COO_DPR - Blanco Drain at Cooper Rd, ca 0.2 mi. S of Nashua Rd, drains to Salinas R.] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53584 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for DIAZINON. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 164089 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48041 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/14/2007-9/25/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215257 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215255 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
127113 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture | Domestic Animals/Livestock | Natural Sources |
TMDL Name: | Salinas River Nutrients |
TMDL Project Code: | 87 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 10/13/2015 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Lines of evidence for the pollutant name Nitrate and for the pollutant name Nitrogen, Nitrate are combined. Where the fraction is none or not recorded, staff assumed that the fraction is identical to that reported for pollutants of the same name, based on the analytical method. In these cases, sample and exceedance counts are summed for the purpose of making this decision. The Aquatic Life beneficial use is not supported. Since the 2010 Integrated Report assessment cycle, Central Coast Water Board staff assessed nitrate data using an evaluation guideline (Central Coast Region Technical Report, 2010) to interpret the narrative water quality objective for biostimulatory substances, set to protect the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use. A total of 55 of the 56 nitrate samples and 134 of the 137 nitrate/nitrite samples exceed the evaluation guideline. In addition, the following evidence supports the conclusion that nitrate contributes to or causes a bio stimulatory effect in this water segment. 1) This waterbody is on the CWA section 303(d) List due to low dissolved oxygen. 2) Dissolved oxygen for this water body ranged from 3.9 mg/L to over 22 mg/L, occasionally exceeding (falling below) the Warm Freshwater Habitat water quality objective of 5.0 mg/L. This waterbody frequently exceeds the upper dissolved oxygen screening of 13.0 mg/L (R3 NNE Technical Report, 2010). 3) Floating algal mats ranged from 0 to 100% cover, frequently exceeding the screening threshold of 50% (R3 NNE Technical Report, 2010). 4) Water column chlorophyll a data from this waterbody ranged from less than 1 to over 100 ug/L, often exceeding the screening threshold of 15 ug/L (R3 NNE Technical Report, 2010). 5) Using site-specific data from this waterbody, the California Benthic Biomass Predictor Tool, v. 13 (Tetratech, 2007) predicted a benthic algal contribution to oxygen deficit for this water body of 3.37 mg/L. This exceeds the screening threshold for benthic algal contribution to oxygen deficit of 1.25 mg/L (R3 NNE Technical Report, 2010). 6) Using site-specific data from this waterbody, the California Benthic Biomass Predictor Tool, v. 13, QUAL2K model (Tetratech, 2007) predicted algae biomass of 80 g/m2 ash-free dry weight (AFDW). This exceeds the Cold water screening threshold of 60 mg/m2, nd is at the Warm water screening threshold for algae biomass of 80 grams/m2 (Creager, et al., 2006). 7) Using site-specific data from this waterbody, the California Benthic Biomass Predictor Tool, v. 13 (Tetratech, 2007) predicted benthic chlorophyll a concentrations of 199 mg/m2. This exceeds the Cold water screening threshold of 150 mg/m2, but not the Warm water screening threshold of 200 mg/m2 (Creager, et al., 2006). 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. In accordance with section 2.2 of the Policy, there is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 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. A total of 55 of the 56 nitrate samples and 134 of the 137 nitrate/nitrite samples exceed the evaluation guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitats. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Further, and in accordance with section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, there is evidence in support of the conclusion that nitrate contributes to or causes a bio stimulatory effect in this water segment. 4. The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL has been approved by USEPA on 10/13/2015. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 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 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: | 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. A total of 55 of the 56 nitrate samples and 134 of the 137 nitrate/nitrite samples exceed the evaluation guideline for Warm Freshwater Habitats. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Further, and in accordance with section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, there is evidence in support of the conclusion that nitrate contributes to or causes a bio stimulatory effect in this water segment. 4. The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL has been approved by USEPA on 10/13/2015. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 149577 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd crossing, watersheds 30910 and 30920) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | CMP water quality data 10/17/2018--12/20/2018. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station. Station Code(s): 309BLA | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected between 2018-10-30 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected verified in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48043 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 38 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 36 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 36 of 38 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Technical Approach to Develop Nutrient Numeric Endpoints for California. U.S. EPA Region IX. State Water Resources Control Board. 68-C-02-108-To-111 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48042 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Technical Approach to Develop Nutrient Numeric Endpoints for California. U.S. EPA Region IX. State Water Resources Control Board. 68-C-02-108-To-111 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/28/2008-12/9/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27851 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Technical Approach to Develop Nutrient Numeric Endpoints for California. U.S. EPA Region IX. State Water Resources Control Board. 68-C-02-108-To-111 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2005-12/13/2005. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27852 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 34 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 34 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Technical Approach to Develop Nutrient Numeric Endpoints for California. U.S. EPA Region IX. State Water Resources Control Board. 68-C-02-108-To-111 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Blanco drain at Cooper Rd, Pump station] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 11/12/2001-6/9/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215329 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 96 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 95 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 95 of 96 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-04-29 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215331 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125662 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
TMDL Name: | Salinas River Watershed Sediment Toxicity TMDL U.S. EPA Vision Priority |
TMDL Project Code: | 1056 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 08/09/2018 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) List under sections 2.2, 4.1, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results (or endpoints) but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location. Seven LOEs summarize water samples. Twenty-one of 51 samples were toxic to test organisms (exhibited a significant increase in mortality, decrease in cell density, decrease in growth or reproduction compared to the laboratory control) and therefore exceeded the narrative general water quality objective for toxicity, set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Five LOEs summarize sediment samples. Ten of 16 samples were toxic to test organisms (exhibited a significant increase in mortality, decrease in cell density, decrease in growth or reproduction compared to the laboratory control) and therefore exceeded the narrative general water quality objective for toxicity, set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates 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. 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-one of 51 water samples, and ten of 16 sediment samples, were toxic to test organisms relative to the control and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The TMDL for toxicity and pesticides in the Salinas River Watershed has been approved by the USEPA on August 9, 2018. 5. 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. Furthermore, this pollutant waterbody combination should be placed in the 'Being Addressed' portion of the 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23626 | ||||
Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPnorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Hyalella azteca Survival (%) 10 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/13/2005-5/24/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23624 | ||||
Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPnorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/16/2005-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23632 | ||||
Pollutant: | Plant Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPnorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Selenastrum capricornutum Growth (Cell Density) 4 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction in cell count of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and cell count <80% of control. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/16/2005-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53552 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the three samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. Statistically significant effects on Hyalella azteca were observed in samples collected on 0/30/2008 and 10/28/2009. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity was defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. In the SWAMP data format, a Significance Effect Code of SL denotes toxic test results. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Station 309BLA - Blanco Drain at old pump house. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in July and October 2008 and October 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59004 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the three samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included growth and survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location. Significant toxicity to Hyalella azteca was reported for samples collected on 4/5/07 and 4/17/09. It should be noted that the samples collected in 2006, that were in the data file associated with this LOE, are not included in this LOE because they were included in the previous assessment cycle. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | A significant effect is determined by a statistical test. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Blanco Drain (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from annually from April 2007 to April 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. QAPP for the Cooperative Monitoring program for Agriculture in Region 3. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Comments on the 2010 Integrated Report for Ormond Beach and Calleguas Creek. Oxnard, CA: City of Oxnard, Public Works Department | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 of the 1 samples collected by SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53553 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eleven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Seven of the 11 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests for the samples included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival and growth of Pimephales promelas and total cell count (growth) of Selenastrum capricornutum. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location. Significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproduction occurred in samples from 2/23/08, 9/30/08, 2/6/09, 8/26/09, 9/30/09, and 1/20/10. Significant toxicity to Pimephales promelas growth occurred in the sample from 10/24/07. It should be noted that the samples collected in 2005 and 2006, in the data file associated with this LOE, are not included in this LOE because they were included in the previous assessment cycle. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant effect is defined here using a two-tier approach consistent with the method used by the SWAMP program. The effect must be significant when compared to the control sample based on statistical test alpha level of 0.05 (Probability field in data set) AND the mean must be more than 20 percent different from the control (PercentControl field in data set). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Blanco Drain (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2007 to March 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. QAPP for the Cooperative Monitoring program for Agriculture in Region 3. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Comments on the 2010 Integrated Report for Ormond Beach and Calleguas Creek. Oxnard, CA: City of Oxnard, Public Works Department | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 23631 | ||||
Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPnorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Pimephales promelas Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/16/2005-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215559 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 7 samples collected by RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-29 and 2018-04-25. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215563 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 of the 1 samples collected by SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Selenastrum capricornutum, for Total Cell Count | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215561 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 6 of the 23 samples collected by RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Selenastrum capricornutum, for Total Cell Count, Pimephales promelas, for Biomass (wt/orig indiv), Cyprinodon variegatus, for Biomass (wt/orig indiv), Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Young/female, Ceriodaphnia dubia, for Survival, Cyprinodon variegatus, for Survival, Hyalella azteca, for Survival, Chironomus dilutus, for Survival, Pimephales promelas, for Survival, Thalassiosira pseudonana, for Total Cell Count | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-03-27 and 2018-04-25. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53543 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Six of the nine samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca and survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia for four samples and survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia only for five samples. Statistically significant effects on Hyalella azteca were observed in the sample from 4/29/2008 and significant effects on Ceriodaphnia dubia were observed in five samples 1/5/08, 2/24/2008,10/14/09, 10/22/09 and 2/15/09. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity was defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. In the SWAMP data format, a Significance Effect Code of SL denotes toxic test results. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 309BLA - Blanco Drain at old pump house. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between January 2008 and October 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
125646 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215404 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 6.5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125649 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | 2,4-Dichlorophenol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms and zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms and zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215260 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2,4-Dichlorophenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dichlorophenol, 2,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 790 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-04-25 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125650 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | 2,4-Dimethylphenol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of three samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of three samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215245 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2,4-Dimethylphenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethylphenol, 2,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 2,300 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-08-28 and 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125651 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | 2,4-Dinitrophenol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of six samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of six samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215250 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2,4-Dinitrophenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dinitrophenol, 2,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 14,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125656 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | 2-Chlorophenol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of three samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of three samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215299 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2-Chlorophenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorophenol, 2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 400 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-08-28 and 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129892 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Alachlor |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53405 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 224851 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Alachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.64 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
108081 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. Once summed, a total of zero of two samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of two samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215261 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-30 and 2014-12-02 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 157184 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
125679 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
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: | 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 for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) List. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use(s). One of 1 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect the agricultural supply beneficial use (AGR). 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use(s). One of 1 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect the agricultural supply beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215264 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aluminum. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 4-day average for fish and water consumption is 0.087 mg/L (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
127171 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Five lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Based on LOEs summarizing un-ionized ammonia data, one of the 46 samples exceed the water quality objective (Basin Plan) set to protect aquatic life. Based on LOEs summarizing total ammonia data (‘nitrogen, ammonia’ and ‘nitrogen as ammonia’) zero of the 45 samples exceed the EPA's Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria set to protect aquatic life. 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. One of the samples exceed the water quality objectives 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14499 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 (General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries) states that the discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters (page III-4) . | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215221 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 44 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 44 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-05-25 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215223 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 149573 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd crossing, watersheds 30910 and 30920) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ammonia as N, Unionized. 3 of these samples were estimates. | ||||
Data Reference: | CMP water quality data 10/17/2018--12/20/2018. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin General Objective, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2 (Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/L (as N) in receiving waters (page 32). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station. Station Code(s): 309BLA | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected between 2018-10-30 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected verified in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48038 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 (General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries) states that the discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters (page III-4). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125627 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. 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. A total of zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215504 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125628 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Atrazine |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53407 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 14 water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215273 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 224910 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125641 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215279 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Azinphos Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Criterion Continuous Concentration for freshwater aquatic life is 0.01 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, EPA 2016) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-30 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215277 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Azinphos Methyl. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Criterion Continuous Concentration for freshwater aquatic life is 0.01 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, EPA 2016) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108084 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Bensulide |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 159186 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bensulide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bensulide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Bensulide is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
108076 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline and zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53410 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for BIFENTHRIN. Nine sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215506 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215508 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 159103 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L (Fojut et al., 2012). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria report for Bifenthrin. Phase III: application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-04-09 to 2013-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53408 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of three toxicity LC50 values from Amweg et al. (2005) and one toxicity LC50 value from Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner (Fojut et al. 2012). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
129887 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Butylate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOEs) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53411 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 224989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Butylate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Butylate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Butylate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 105 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125630 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 8 water samples exceed the evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection, and zero of 1 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic habitat beneficial uses. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support ratings are set to 'insufficient information'. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 8 water samples exceed the evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection, and zero of 1 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic habitat beneficial uses and these sample sizes are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215511 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium in 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215290 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215289 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108064 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215294 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Criterion Continuous Concentration for freshwater aquatic life is 2.1 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, EPA 2016) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2014-12-02 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53412 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for CARBARYL. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for carbaryl is 0.02 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 160353 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Criterion Continuous Concentration for freshwater aquatic life is 2.1 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, EPA 2016) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
108065 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215296 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Carbofuran is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.75 ug/L for an invertibrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2014-12-02 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53413 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for CARBOFURAN. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for carbofuran is 0.5 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 160538 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Carbofuran is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.75 ug/L for an invertibrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
125631 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for aquatic life beneficial uses. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for aquatic life protection 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215512 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chlordane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chlordane is 17.6 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215513 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chlordane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chlordane is 17.6 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125675 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215519 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chromium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium in 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125681 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Clothianidin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) List. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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. 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 nine water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215311 | ||||
Pollutant: | Clothianidin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Clothianidin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Clothianidin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.05 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-09-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125633 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) List. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. For the water matrix, a total of zero of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. For the sediment matrix, a total of zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. For the water matrix, a total of zero of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. For the sediment matrix, a total of zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Copper . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper in 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215224 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215225 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125682 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Coumaphos |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215233 | ||||
Pollutant: | Coumaphos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Coumaphos. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Coumaphos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.037 ug/L for invertabretes (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125668 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215254 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyanazine is the EC50 of 4.8 ug/L for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
108082 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of nine sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline and zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53561 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215525 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 163294 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L (0.05 ng/L) more than once every three years on the average (Fojut et al., 2012). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-04-09 to 2013-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
108083 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of ten sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline and zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 167532 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L (0.5 ng/L) more than once every three years on the average (Fojut et al., 2012). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-04-09 to 2013-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53563 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53564 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Nine sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyhalothrin, lambda, total does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53565 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215529 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108077 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of seven sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline and zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53568 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for CYPERMETHRIN. Nine sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cypermethrin; Cypermethrin, total does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53567 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53566 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 163670 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L (0.2 ng/L) more than once every three years on the average (Fojut et al. ,2012). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-04-09 to 2013-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215530 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129883 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Dacthal |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOEs) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225069 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dacthal. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dacthal is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of >1100 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) and vascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a \greater-than\" value (for example, > 265,000) and may overestimate toxicity." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125674 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Four lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53578 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Zero of five sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines set to protect aquatic life Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215546 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215549 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225105 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Deltamethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
108068 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 53585, 53586, and 53587 have been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of zero water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. Although a total of 29 samples were collected, all 29 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215239 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 7 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2014-02-28 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225033 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-08-23 to 2007-09-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225032 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 16 samples were collected, 16 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2003-06-17 to 2003-09-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 164463 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-26 to 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
125634 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for aquatic life beneficial uses. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for aquatic life protection 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215474 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dieldrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Dieldrin is 61.8 ug/kg dw. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215476 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dieldrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Dieldrin is 61.8 ug/kg dw. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108079 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 53588, 53589, and 53590 have been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 19 water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 224843 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2003-06-23 and 2003-09-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225078 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-23 and 2007-09-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 164722 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215242 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215241 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125635 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Dinitro-o-cresol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215247 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dinitro-o-cresol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dinitro-2-methylphenol, 4,6-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 765 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125636 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of seven water samples exceed the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. 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 supported using table 3.1. 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. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215346 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Disulfoton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Disulfoton is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.01 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Disulfoton. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Disulfoton is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.01 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125637 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Diuron |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use; zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use; and zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use, zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use, and zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215349 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Diuron, 1.3 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (Fojut et al., 2010). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-30 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125638 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of 17 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of 17 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53592 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Fonofos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fonofos is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.45 ug/L. The MATC (or Chronic Value as defined in USEPA 1985, P20 section F) is calculated as the geometric mean of the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) of 0.64 ug/L and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 0.31 ug/L, as determined in a 21 day toxicity study with the water flea, Daphnia magna. Threshold values (LOEC and NOEC) are from USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215361 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fonofos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fonofos is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.45 ug/L. The MATC is calculated as the geometric mean of the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) of 0.64 ug/L and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 0.31 ug/L, as determined in a 21 day toxicity study with the water flea, Daphnia magna. Threshold values (LOEC and NOEC) are from USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125639 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for aquatic life beneficial uses. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for aquatic life protection 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215478 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Endrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Endrin is 207 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215479 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Endrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Endrin is 207 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125677 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Zero of the 25 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Therefore, the data support the conclusion that the aquatic life beneficial use is fully supported. 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. 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 sediment samples and zero of the 25 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53594 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215483 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2014-04-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215484 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53593 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for ESFENVALERATE. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53595 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
DECISION ID |
129888 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Ethalfluralin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53596 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225044 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethalfluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethalfluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethalfluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125667 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Ethion |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215352 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ethion. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.028 ug/L for invertebrates (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108080 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 53458, 53459, and 53460 have been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215355 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 166055 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225315 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2003-06-23 and 2003-09-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225230 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-23 and 2007-09-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129893 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fenamiphos |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53461 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of zero water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. Although samples were collected, all samples had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225336 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenamiphos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenamiphos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenamiphos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.12 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2003-06-23 and 2003-09-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
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 |
125671 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fenitrothion |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215357 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenitrothion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenitrothion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenitrothion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.087 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125676 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Four lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53467 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Zero of nine sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines set to protect aquatic life Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53466 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225416 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215485 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2018-04-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215501 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125672 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fenthion |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215358 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenthion. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenthion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.013 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125640 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use; zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use; and zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use, zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use, and zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215363 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Glyphosate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11900 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129894 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Hexazinone |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53475 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225490 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexazinone | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Hexazinone. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Hexazinone is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 7 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
108073 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215365 | ||||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Imidacloprid. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Imidacloprid does not exceed 0.016 ug/L. (UC Davis Water Quality Criteria) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Imidacloprid Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology. University of California, Davis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-12-13 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 167237 | ||||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Imidacloprid. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Imidacloprid does not exceed 0.016 ug/L. (UC Davis Water Quality Criteria) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Imidacloprid Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology. University of California, Davis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-26 to 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
125642 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline and zero of nine water samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215489 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lead . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead in 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215369 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215367 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125643 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
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: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for aquatic life beneficial uses. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for aquatic life protection 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. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) List because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215487 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lindane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215503 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lindane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125644 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Linuron |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use; zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use; and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use, zero of six samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use, and zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215379 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Linuron. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2014-02-28 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
108069 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. For lines of evidence where the fraction is “not recorded” staff assumed that the fraction is “total” and the sample and exceedance counts are summed for the purpose of making this decision. For lines of evidence where the fraction is “dissolved” staff has summed the exceedance and sample counts independently. Where the fraction is "not recorded" or "total", one of 13 water samples exceed the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline (Faria et al., 2010). Where the fraction is "dissolved" one of one water samples exceed the evaluation guideline (USEPA drinking water health advisory) applied to protect the municipal and domestic water supply beneficial use. These sample sizes are 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 supported using table 3.1. 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. 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 13 water samples exceed the aquatic life evaluation guideline where the fraction is "not recorded" or "total" and one of one water samples exceed the aquatic life evaluation guideline where the fraction is "dissolved". These sample sizes are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial support rating. 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53483 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53476 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/14/2007-9/25/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215384 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L more than once every three years on the average (Faria et al., 2010). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-08-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215382 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Malathion. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L more than once every three years on the average (Faria et al., 2010). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 168866 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L more than once every three years on the average (Faria et al., 2010). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-26 to 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53477 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for MALATHION. Eight sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53482 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/23/2006-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125626 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Methamidophos |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 five water samples exceed the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. 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 supported using table 3.1. 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. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215387 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methamidophos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methamidophos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methamifophos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.5 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-30 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
108078 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Methidathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 53484 and 53485 have been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 21 water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215394 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225234 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225357 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2003-06-23 and 2003-09-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 169777 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215392 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108074 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. Once summed, a total of zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of four samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215395 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2014-12-02 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 169907 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
108075 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Methomyl |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215312 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methomyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.7 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2014-12-02 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 170206 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methomyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.7 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
108086 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Methoxyfenozide |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 170243 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxyfenozide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methoxyfenozide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methoxyfenozide is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 3.1 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-09 and 2013-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
129889 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225426 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Metolachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Metolachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
129884 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Molinate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53499 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Molinate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 105 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
129890 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Napropamide |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53500 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225302 | ||||
Pollutant: | Napropamide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Napropamide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Napropamide is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1100 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute) and fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125648 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) List. A total of six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. For the water matrix, a total of zero of eight samples exceed the dissolved fraction water quality objective and zero of nine samples exceed the total fraction water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and zero of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. For the sediment matrix, a total of use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. For the water matrix, a total of zero of eight samples exceed the dissolved fraction water quality objective and zero of nine samples exceed the total fraction water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use and zero of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. For the sediment matrix, a total of use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215318 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 4.6 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215322 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215323 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215317 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 4.6 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215340 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 4.6 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215491 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel in 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
108071 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. For lines of evidence where the fraction is “not recorded” staff assumed that the fraction is “total” and the sample and exceedance counts are summed for the purpose of making this decision. Zero of 13 water samples exceeded the aquatic life evaluation guideline for additive effects of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (Bailey et al., 1997). 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. 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. 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 13 samples exceeded 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215333 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophophate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 173883 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophophate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2015-08-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215335 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophophate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
108072 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. A total of zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 174119 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxamyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oxamyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 27 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-04-26 and 2011-04-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215339 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxamyl (Vydate) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxamyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oxamyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 27 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2014-04-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129886 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: One of nine water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline set to protect aquatic life. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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. One of nine samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxyfluorfen. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of Oxyfluorfen does not exceed 0.14 ug/L in the water column more than once every three years on average (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria report for Oxyfluorfen. Phase III: application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125678 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Paraquat |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. The readily available data and information are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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. 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. A total of zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use 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. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215427 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Paraquat. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2014-04-30 to 2014-08-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129891 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225476 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pendimethalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pendimethalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 5.2 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125653 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Pentachlorophenol (PCP) |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under sections 3.1, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status in water samples. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of five water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline applied to protect aquatic life beneficial uses. Zero of five water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline applied to protect commercial or recreational collection beneficial uses. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero samples exceeded the evaluation guidelines, 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215431 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pentachlorophenol (PCP) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pentachlorophenol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Pentachlorophenol criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is pH dependent. The criteria has a value of 15 ug/L when based on a default pH of 7.8. (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215430 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pentachlorophenol (PCP) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pentachlorophenol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 8.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2017-09-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125680 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine sediment samples and zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Note, the water sample results 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. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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 be placed on the section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. Furthermore, this pollutant waterbody combination should be placed in the 'Being Addressed' portion of the 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215493 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125680 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status, but under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status and the pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the section 303(d) List. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine sediment samples and zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Note, the water sample results 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. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines 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 be placed on the section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. Furthermore, this pollutant waterbody combination should be placed in the 'Being Addressed' portion of the 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215494 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53507 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53509 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53508 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for PERMETHRIN. Nine sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
125655 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Phenol |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of seven samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of seven samples exceed the water quality objective for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215445 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phenol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Human health risk associated with organism consumption is 4,600,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125669 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Phorate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence (LOE)s are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 53517, 53518, and 53519 have been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 13 water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225348 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-23 and 2007-09-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215447 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215448 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225288 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2003-06-23 and 2003-09-29 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
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 |
125673 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Phosmet |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53520 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 15 water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215455 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225265 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215453 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-30 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129885 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Prometryn |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53528 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the UC Davis aquatic life criteria. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of nine water samples exceeded the aquatic life evaluation guideline (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria). This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225540 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of Prometryn does not exceed 0.562 ug/L in the water column more than once every three years on average (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Prometryn Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology. University of California, Davis. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
129895 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Propiconazole |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53530 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225560 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propiconazole | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Propiconazole. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Propiconazole is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 21 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125666 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) List. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the seven sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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. 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 seven sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215551 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215496 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125658 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Silver |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215466 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125659 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53531 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the USEPA aquatic life benchmarks. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 13 water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215470 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
108087 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Tebufenozide |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 156196 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tebufenozide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Surface Water Monitoring Project data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Tebufenozide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Tebufenozide is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 29 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (Monterey 9) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-04-09 and 2013-04-09 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data is exempt from QAPP requirement | ||||
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 |
125660 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Terbufos |
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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215397 | ||||
Pollutant: | Terbufos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Terbufos. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included 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 Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Terbufos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.03 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
125683 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Thiamethoxam |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, and single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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. 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 two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for each aquatic life beneficial use 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215401 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiamethoxam | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiamethoxam. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiamethoxam is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.74 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-12-13 and 2018-03-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129896 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb |
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: | 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 (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of eight water samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225610 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125663 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin |
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: | 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. Two lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 53554 has been removed from this decision and replaced with new LOEs that assess the data using the UC Davis aquatic life criteria. Sample and exceedance counts for the lines of evidence with the fraction identified as “none” or “not recorded” are grouped together with those having the fraction “total”, based on the analytical method used. The following is a summary of the sample and exceedances for each beneficial use: Zero of 14 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline set to protect for aquatic life beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine an applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. In accordance with Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported. 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 samples exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215407 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of Trifluralin does not exceed 0.33 ug/L in the water column more than once every three years on average (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Trifluralin Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology University of California, Davis. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-30 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 225530 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of Trifluralin does not exceed 0.33 ug/L in the water column more than once every three years on average (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Trifluralin Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology University of California, Davis. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-01-05 and 2009-10-28 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required | ||||
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 |
125665 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of nine samples exceed the dissolved fraction water quality objective and zero of one sample exceeds the total fraction water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed 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. A total of zero of nine samples exceed the dissolved fraction water quality objective and zero of one sample exceeds the total fraction water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215556 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Zinc . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc in 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000a) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215408 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
129446 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | 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 |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) List under section 3.1 and section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the 303(d) List. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Note that this decision combines the pollutant ‘DDT’ and ‘total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD).’ Two LOEs summarize water samples. One of one water sample exceeds the DDT evaluation guideline (California Toxics Rule, 2000), set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. One of one water sample exceeds the DDT evaluation guideline (California Toxics Rule, 2000), set to protect for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or other organisms, beneficial uses. Eight LOEs summarize sediment samples. Two of eight sediment sample exceeds the DDT evaluation guideline (MacDonald et al., 2000a) set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses, which exceeds the allowable frequency. These samples are associated with sediment toxicity, summarized in two LOEs. One of eight sediment samples exceed the total DDT evaluation guideline (MacDonald et al., 2000a) set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of eight sediment samples exceed the evaluation guidelines for aquatic life beneficial uses. These samples are associated with sediment toxicity, 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215554 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total DDTs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total DDTs is 572 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215553 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total DDTs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total DDTs is 572 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215542 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDT from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDT is 62.9 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-06-26 to 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215543 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDT from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDT is 62.9 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 309BLA. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-05-25 to 2010-05-25 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53541 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53542 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Data assessed were suspended sediment samples isolated from the whole water sample. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215562 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 of the 1 samples collected by SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53576 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53574 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Eight sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53575 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Eight sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215559 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 of the 7 samples collected by RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program for Blanco Drain exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coastal Basin Plan 2019). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 station. Monitoring site: ( 309BLA ) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-29 and 2018-04-25. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53577 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. Data assessed were suspended sediment samples isolated from the whole water sample. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-2/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
DECISION ID |
125657 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (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. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of seven of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed 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. A total of seven of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215467 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215468 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-02-28 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
125654 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | 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 |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) List under sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Fifteen lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirty of the 173 samples exceed the maximum pH water quality objective for Contact and Non-contact Recreation beneficial uses. Seven of the 173 samples exceed the maximum pH water quality objective for Warm Freshwater Habitat. 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 the problem. 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. Thirty of the 173 samples exceed the maximum pH water quality objective for Contact and Non-contact Recreation beneficial uses and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215442 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation (Section 3.3.2 Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215439 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 102 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 21 of 102 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation (Section 3.3.2 Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-04-29 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215444 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 102 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 102 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for warm fresh water habitat (Section 3.3.2 Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the pH value shall neither be depressed below 7.0 nor raised above 8.5. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-04-29 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215441 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for warm fresh water habitat (Section 3.3.2 Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the pH value shall neither be depressed below 7.0 nor raised above 8.5. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215440 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB3 CCAMP SpecialStudies data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Tissue, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation (Section 3.3.2 Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-06-26 and 2013-06-26 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP 2008 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 215436 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 102 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB3 Cooperative Monitoring Program data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 21 of 102 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation (Section 3.3.2 Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries) states that the pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (309BLA) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-04-29 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14666 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 25 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48046 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 36 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3 (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 47906 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Region 3 - Central Coast Region staff assessed R3 public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3 (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008 4:00:00 PM-10/28/2009 4:30:00 PM. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | A QAPP was not specifically written for this project. However, staff conducting data collection and laboratory analysis are also SWAMP contractors. All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 47908 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Region 3 - Central Coast Region staff assessed R3 public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5 (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008 4:00:00 PM-10/28/2009 4:30:00 PM. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | A QAPP was not specifically written for this project. However, staff conducting data collection and laboratory analysis are also SWAMP contractors. All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48048 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 36 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5 (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14668 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 25 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14667 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 25 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 47907 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Region 3 - Central Coast Region staff assessed R3 public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3 (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008 4:00:00 PM-10/28/2009 4:30:00 PM. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | A QAPP was not specifically written for this project. However, staff conducting data collection and laboratory analysis are also SWAMP contractors. All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48047 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 36 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3 (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
80300 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Pesticides |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Change from general pollutant to specific pollutant listing (e.g. metals to copper) |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data are assessed. This decision has not changed from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. The data cannot be found that was used in the initial assessment of this water segment-pollutant combination. One line of evidence (LOE) is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant but no data or information is associated with that LOE. This decision for the general category of 'Pesticides' is being replaced by individual decisions for each of the pesticides for which there are data. This water segment is being assessed for a full suite of currently applied pesticides such as OP and pyrethroid pesticides. Those individual decisions replace this generic decision for pesticides. Based on the readily available data and information, there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List as the generic pollutant of pesticides has been replaced by decisions for several individual pesticides. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because this decision is not supported by data and there are data assessed for several different pesticides for this water segment. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3721 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
125632 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a |
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 | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data were assessed for the 2020 listing cycle. This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 60 samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 60 samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 48039 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Water Board Staff assessed public submissions data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 36 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorophyll a. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | North Carolina Administrative code (NCAC), Title 15A - Environmental and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2B-Surface water and wetland standards, Rule 0211-Fresh surface water quality standards for class C waters (Class C is defined as freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife). Section 3(a) of Rule 0211 applies to all fresh surface waters and states that chlorophyll a is not to exceed 40 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality standards table | ||||
Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/30/2007-3/31/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Central Coast Water Board Staff are not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 14500 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCWQP Northern Area Ag-Waiver Monitoring (R3_CMPNorth) data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 24 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorophyll a. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc toxicity data | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality standards table | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | North Carolina Administrative code (NCAC), Title 15A - Environmental and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2B-Surface water and wetland standards, Rule 0211-Fresh surface water quality standards for class C waters (Class C is defined as freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife). Section 3(a) of Rule 0211 applies to all fresh surface waters and states that chlorophyll a is not to exceed 40 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309BLA - Blanco Drain below pump] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/26/2005-12/12/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
80077 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Demeton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 5 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006) used to interpret the narrative water quality objective. The 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 supported using table 3.1, and therefore the Beneficial use rating is set to ¿insufficient information¿ for the sediment samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 5 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006) used to interpret the narrative water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53580 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Demeton criterion continuous concentration for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 0.1 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/23/2006-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53581 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recomm. WQ criteria, 4-day avg. is 0.1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/14/2007-9/25/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
80266 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) list.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This 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 for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53468 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fipronil. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.13 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
DECISION ID |
98616 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) list.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This 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 for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53469 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fipronil sulfide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfide is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.16 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
DECISION ID |
99875 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) list.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This 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 for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. 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 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for aquatic life protection 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53474 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fipronil sulfone. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfone is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.12 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
DECISION ID |
80307 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 3 sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline (Ding et al., 2011) used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for the protection of aquatic life. Zero of the 30 water samples exceeded evaluation guideline (CDFG, 1992). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 3 sediment samples and zero of the 30 water exceeded the evaluation guidelines and these do 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53491 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game (now called the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53498 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Methyl parathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53493 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game (now called the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53490 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc water quality data | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game (now called California Department of Fish and Wildlife) instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/23/2006-9/27/2006. Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) staff conduct monitoring for conventional pollutants at all Ag Waiver monitoring sites monthly. CMP staff also conduct water toxicity monitoring quarterly and sediment toxicity monitoring annually (in spring). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the Cooperative Monitoring Program QAPP, (Clark and Ogle 2006). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53492 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed CMP data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from Region 3 Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Jan. 2007-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game (now called the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/14/2007-9/25/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the CCRWQCB Cooperative Monitoring Program for Agriculture data and provided in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring for the Region 3 Conditional Ag Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program, Revision 6 | ||||
DECISION ID |
85196 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) list.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of zero water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for the aquatic life beneficial uses. Twenty-five water samples were collected, however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Zero out of three sediment samples exceeded the aquatic life evaluation guideline. 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 supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No water or sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guidelines. 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. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53507 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/2/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from UC Davis Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53509 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed DPR data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support. Sixteen samples were collected however they were all non-detect and the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Department of Pesticide Regulation Data_ 2003-2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (CCRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/17/2003-9/29/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | All data was collected and analyzed following Department of Pesticide Regulation Standard Operating Procedures (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sop.htm). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53508 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for PERMETHRIN. Nine sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. For this assessment, the 4-day average concentration was used. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79733 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) |
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 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 9 water samples exceed the relevant evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for the protection of aquatic life. The 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 supported using table 3.1, and therefore the Beneficial use rating is set to ¿insufficient information¿ for the sediment samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 9 water samples exceed the relevant evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for the protection of aquatic life 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53529 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for PROPANIL. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Propanil is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.5 ug/L. The MATC (or Chronic Value as defined in USEPA 1985, P20 section F) is calculated as the geometric mean of the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) of 0.6 ug/L and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 0.4 ug/L, as determined in a 60 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Threshold values (LOEC and NOEC) are from USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79784 |
Region 3 |
Blanco Drain |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
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 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 9 water samples exceed the relevant evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for the protection of aquatic life. The 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 supported using table 3.1, and therefore the Beneficial use rating is set to ¿insufficient information¿ for the sediment samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 9 water samples exceed the relevant evaluation guidelines used to interpret the narrative water quality objective for the protection of aquatic life 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 53540 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed USGS data for Blanco Drain to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for THIOBENCARB. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for various pollutants in the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria River estuaries, Jan. 2008-Oct. 2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Central Coast Basin Plan General Objective). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 1.4 ug/L. The MATC (or Chronic Value as defined in USEPA 1985, P20 section F) is calculated as the geometric mean of the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) of 2.0 ug/L and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 1.0 ug/L, as determined in a 21 day toxicity study with the water flea, Daphnia magna. Threshold values (LOEC and NOEC) are from USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Blanco Drain was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Blanco Drain - 309BLA] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-10/28/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected for the Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats project. A QAPP was provided and the data was analyzed at the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory and submitted in SWAMP format. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||