| Water Body Name: | Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
| Water Body ID: | CAR4031100020000228145414 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
69480 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 2 of 2 samples exceed the CRITERION. 2 of 6 samples exceed the CRITERION. 2 of 6 samples exceed the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 2, 2 of 6, and 2 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and 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: | 84129 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| 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: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2028 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of 2 samples exceeded. A total of 2 filet composite samples of goldfish and brown bullhead were collected. Goldfish sample was collected in 1993 and brown bullhead was collected in 1994. The guideline was exceeded in both samples. In addition, one whole fish sample of fathead minnow was collected in 1994 and exceeded the guideline (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | OEHHA Screening Value 30 ng/g for chlordane (total). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One station located above culvert in Oxnard Drain #2 at Perimeter Road crossing. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected annually 1993-94. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84128 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saltwater is 0.004 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69132 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 2 of 2 samples exceed the CRITERION. 2 of 2 samples exceed the CRITERION. 2 of 6 samples exceed the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 2, 2 of 2, 2 of 6 and 2 of 2 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and 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: | 84142 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Four sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT-4,4' 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2032 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of 2 samples exceeded (note: Whole fish sample of fathead minnow exceeded NAS Guideline in 1994). A filet composite sample of goldfish and one individual sample of brown bullhead were collected. Goldfish were collected in 1993 while brown bullhead were collected in 1994. The guideline was exceeded in both samples (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | OEHHA Screening Value: 100 ng/g for DDT | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One station located above culvert in Oxnard Drain 2 at Perimeter Road crossing. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 1993-94. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84141 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saline water 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69481 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 2 of 2 samples exceed the CRITERIA. 3 of 3 samples exceed the CRITERIA. 3 of 3 samples exceed the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 2, 3 of 3 and 3 of 3 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and 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: | 2030 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of 2 samples exceeded. A total of 2 filet composite samples of goldfish and brown bullhead were collected. Goldfish sample was collected in 1993 and brown bullhead was collected in 1994. The guideline was exceeded in both samples. In addition, one whole fish sample of fathead minnow was collected in 1994 and exceeded the NAS Guideline (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | OEHHA Screening Value: 30 ng/g for toxaphene. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One station located above culvert in Oxnard Drain #2 at Perimeter Road crossing. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected annually 1993-94. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84180 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| 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: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Three sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00075 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84179 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Three sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 0.0002 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69177 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| 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: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Toxicity (2) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 355 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/2005 |
| 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 two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 0 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 1 of the 5 samples exceed the 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. 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. 1 of 5 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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: | 2034 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84181 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. One of the five samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca, cell density for Thalassiosira pseudonana, survival and reproduction for Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival and growth of Americamysis bahia. Statistically significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproduction was observed on 1/5/2008. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. EPA 600/4-90/27. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in June and September 2007, January and September 2008 and August 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2035 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95845 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERION. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84117 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.000050 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84119 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 1.3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95513 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84122 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface water shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Ocean Plan ammonia objective for marine aquatic life is a 6-month median of 600 ug/L as N. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95402 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 3 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 3 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84123 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos Methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Azinphos methyl (Guthion) criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 0.01 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 9/16/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95789 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84131 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples collected exceeded the recommended level of 230 mg/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. These drains are tributary to Magu Lagoon and therefore the recommended objectives for chloride for protection of aquatic life apply. The recommended protection is a 4 day Continuous Concentration of 230 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | samples were collected from the 01T_ODD2_DCH station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately thrice annually in 2008 and 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95403 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84134 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The genus mean acute value for a grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) of 0.016 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95454 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Demeton |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84144 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria lists criterion continuous concentrations for Demeton to protect aquatic life in freshwater and saltwater is 0.1 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95732 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84145 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for diazinon to protect saltwater aquatic organisms is 0.82 ug/L (EPA-822-R-05-006). | ||||
| 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95846 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERION. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84149 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84148 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saltwater is 0.0019 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95733 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84152 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The endosulfan criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 89 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
| 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95734 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84099 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms only is 240 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95354 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84101 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saltwater is 0.0023 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84102 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95735 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84103 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.30 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95400 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84106 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.0036 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84107 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95401 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERION. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 and 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84110 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor Epoxide. 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 from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84109 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor Epoxide. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor epoxide criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life is 0.0036 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95787 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84112 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, gamma(Lindane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.16 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95511 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Malathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84113 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for saltwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for malathion is 0.1 µg/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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95512 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84114 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for saltwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for methoxychlor is 0.03 µg/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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95556 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84167 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-11) states that: "The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as both COLD and SPWN shall not be depressed below 7 mg/L as a result of waste discharges." | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95629 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84168 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The interim criteria maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in saline water is 0.001 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95788 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84121 | ||||
| Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, alpha. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95790 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84125 | ||||
| Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, beta. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
72210 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84143 | ||||
| Pollutant: | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for BHC, delta. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, delta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.063 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95337 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 9, 0 of 9 and 0 of 9 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84170 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84172 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 84169 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/4/2007-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95338 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 2 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERIA 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: | 84126 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The genus mean acute value for a mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) of 0.00397 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Esfenvalerate, and Permethrin to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Administrative Report 00-6 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
68974 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | ChemA |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2005 and subsequently approved by USEPA. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| 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. 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: | 2033 | ||||
| Pollutant: | ChemA (tissue) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine 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 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95497 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Toxicity (2) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 355 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/24/2006 |
| 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 5 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 5 of 6 samples exceeded the CRITERION and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Calleguas Creek, Its Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon Toxicity, Chlorpyriphos and Diazonon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 03/24/2006. |
| 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: | 84133 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The saltwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.009 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85873 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
| 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 2 of 2 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 2 of 2 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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: | 84137 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDD(p,p). Four sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD-4,4' 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
99641 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Historic Pesticides (5) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 358 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/14/2006 |
| 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 4 of 4 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 4 of 4 samples exceed the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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: | 84139 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed Agwaiver data for Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for DDE(p,p). Two sample result(s) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for various Pollutants from the Ag Waiver Program, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE-4,4' 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 Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Duck Pond/Oxnard Drain #2/Mugu Drain S. of Hueneme Rd. - 01T_ODD2_DCH] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2008-8/4/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. A QAPP and monitoring plan was submitted. Data was collected by the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group for Order No. R4- 2005-0080.) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
68859 |
Region 4 |
Duck Pond Agricultural Drains/Mugu Drain/Oxnard Drain No 2 |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
| TMDL Name: | Calleguas Creek Nitrogen (1) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 228 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 06/20/2003 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL has an approved implementation plan. USEPA approved the TMDL on June 20, 2003. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| 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. 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: | 2026 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| 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 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||