the attached documents report on the coalition’s ... · phone (209) 851-4204...

Phone (209) 851-4204 [email protected]

Street Address 3294 Ad Art Road, Stockton CA 95215

Mailing Address P.O. Box 2357, Lodi CA 95247-2357

May 1, 2019

Patrick Pulupa

Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

11020 Sun Center Drive, #200

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Dear Mr. Pulupa,

The San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition (SJCDWQC) is submitting the 2019

Annual Report to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) as

required by the Waste Discharge Requirements General Order No. R5-2014-0029-03.

The attached documents report on the Coalition’s monitoring program and management of

surface water and groundwater quality within the Coalition region for the period of October 1,

2017 through September 30, 2018. The 2019 Annual Report includes updates of monitoring

results, a status update of constituents and subwatersheds requiring a management plan, an

evaluation of the current Management Plan strategy including a status update of site

subwatershed performance goals, a summary of outreach and education activities, and a summary

of current and newly implemented management practices in site subwatersheds, an evaluation of

management practice effectiveness, and summary of required WDR submittals and approvals.

Electronic files submitted electronically include:

1. 2019 Annual Report

a. Attachment A: Monitoring Results

b. Attachment B: Exceedance Counts Tally

c. Attachment C: Groundwater Trend Monitoring Results

d. Appendices I – III

2. GIS Map Shapefiles (submitted by mail via CD)

3. Pesticide Use Report Database (Access database; submitted by mail via CD)

4. Farm Evaluation Survey Database (Access database; submitted by mail via CD)

The Coalition provides a SWAMP comparable database with SJCDWQC monitoring results

through September 2018 (Microsoft Access) online and can be accessed at:

https://mpsl.mlml.calstate.edu/data-analysis-tools/#OnlineData. Online tutorials provide training

on how to utilize the online tool. Please contact the Central Valley Regional Data Center (CV

RDC) for a user name and password if one was not already provided.

In every aspect, the Coalition seeks the best quality in its monitoring program by using the most

scientifically reliable field and laboratory protocols, ensuring complete quality control and quality

https://mpsl.mlml.calstate.edu/data-analysis-tools/#OnlineData

Phone (209) 851-4204 [email protected]

Street Address 3294 Ad Art Road, Stockton CA 95215

Mailing Address P.O. Box 2357, Lodi CA 95247-2357

assurance of the data received from laboratories, and reporting on that data accurately and

punctually to both the CVRWQCB and to the members of the Coalition. The Coalition and its

technical staff process and review an immense quantity of data and provide a large number of

reports in a timely manner to the CVRWQCB.

During the 2018 WY reporting period, the Coalition’s monitoring program met WDR

requirements as described in the Annual Report. Sampling occurred during all twelve months

(including two storm events and two sediment events), and all data generated are an accurate

reflection of conditions in the Coalition region. Overall, there was compliance with completeness,

accuracy, and precision requirements for data collected from October 2017 through September

2018.

“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel

properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or

persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the

information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,

and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for knowingly submitting false

information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for violations.”

This letter will be submitted with an original signature to the CVRWQCB.

Submitted respectfully,

Michael L. Johnson

SJCDWQC Technical Program Manager, Michael L. Johnson, LLC

2019 Annual Report

Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

Submitted May 1, 2019

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report i | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... viii

Annual Report Requirements – Section Key ......................................................................................................... xii

Programmatic Questions – Section Key ................................................................................................................. xiii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

SJCDWQC Monitoring Program Summary ......................................................................................................... 1

Surface Water ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Management Plan Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction and Geographical Area .......................................................................................................................... 4

Irrigated Land .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Geographical Characteristics and Land Use ....................................................................................................... 5

Surface Water Monitoring Objectives and Design ............................................................................................. 14

Monitoring Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Monitoring Design ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Monitoring at Core Sites ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Monitoring at Represented Sites ...................................................................................................................... 15

Monitoring at Special Project Sites .................................................................................................................. 15

Groundwater Monitoring Objectives and Design ............................................................................................... 19

Monitoring Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 19

Monitoring Design ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Surface Water Sample Site Descriptions and Locations ................................................................................... 25

Site Subwatershed Descriptions ............................................................................................................................ 27

Sample Site Locations ................................................................................................................................................. 30

Rainfall Records ................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Surface Water Sampling Methods ........................................................................................................................ 37

Sample Collection Details .................................................................................................................................... 39

Surface Water Analytical Methods ....................................................................................................................... 40

Surface Water Sourcing Methods ......................................................................................................................... 43

Pesticide Use Report Data .................................................................................................................................. 43

Toxic Identification Evaluations ........................................................................................................................ 44

Sediment Chemistry Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 44

Groundwater Sampling Methods .......................................................................................................................... 45

Groundwater Analytical Methods ........................................................................................................................ 46

Surface Water Quality Assurance Evaluation Results ...................................................................................... 48

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report ii | P a g e

Completeness ................................................................................................................................................................ 48

Field and Transport Completeness .................................................................................................................. 48

Analytical Completeness ..................................................................................................................................... 49

Batch Completeness .............................................................................................................................................. 49

Hold Time Compliance .......................................................................................................................................... 49

Precision and Accuracy.............................................................................................................................................. 50

Chemistry ................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Toxicity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Corrective Actions....................................................................................................................................................... 59

Surface Water Monitoring Results ............................................................................................................................ 76

Zone 1 Summary of Exceedances .......................................................................................................................... 81

Field Parameters and E. coli ................................................................................................................................. 81



Ammonia .................................................................................................................................................................... 84

Chlorpyrifos .............................................................................................................................................................. 84

Pyrethroids ................................................................................................................................................................ 85



Nitrate + Nitrite as N ............................................................................................................................................. 88

Arsenic ......................................................................................................................................................................... 88

Toxicity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 89



Ammonia .................................................................................................................................................................... 93

Toxicity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 93



Toxicity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 96




Ammonia .................................................................................................................................................................... 99

Arsenic ......................................................................................................................................................................... 99

Toxicity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 99

Discussion of Groundwater Trend Monitoring Results ................................................................................. 102

Quality Assurance Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 102

Existing Data .......................................................................................................................................................... 102

Completeness ........................................................................................................................................................ 102

Hold Time Compliance ....................................................................................................................................... 103

Precision and Accuracy ...................................................................................................................................... 104

Corrective Actions ............................................................................................................................................... 106

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report iii | P a g e

Discussion of Results ............................................................................................................................................... 113

Time Concentration Figures ................................................................................................................................. 113

Coalition Actions Taken to Address Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives ................................. 116

2018 WY Submittals and Approvals ................................................................................................................. 116

Summary of Required WDR Submittals and Approvals ....................................................................... 116

Exceedance Reports ........................................................................................................................................... 116

Quarterly Submittals .......................................................................................................................................... 116

Summary of Outreach, Education, and Collaboration Activities ........................................................... 117

Surface Water Management Plan Activities and Performance Goals ................................................. 119

Summary of Focused Outreach Activities in the 2018 WY ................................................................. 119

Performance Goal 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 120





Planned Focused Outreach Activities for the 2019 WY ...................................................................... 122

Groundwater Management Plan Activities and Performance Goals ................................................... 126

Groundwater Quality Management Plan ................................................................................................... 126

Management Practice Evaluation Program ................................................................................................... 126

Work Plan Revision ............................................................................................................................................. 127

Coordination with the SSJV MPEP ............................................................................................................... 128

N-Removed Coefficients ................................................................................................................................... 128

Crop Prioritization ............................................................................................................................................... 128

Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................ 129

Additional MPEP Reporting Requirements ............................................................................................... 129

MPEP Progress ..................................................................................................................................................... 129

Member Actions Taken to Address Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives .................................. 131

Management Practices ........................................................................................................................................... 131

2017 Focused Outreach Summary of Management Practices (2017-2019) ............................... 132

2018 Focused Outreach Summary of Management Practices (2018-2020) ............................... 133

Farm Evaluations ........................................................................................................................................................... 139

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 140

Irrigation Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 146

Sediment Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 148

Pesticide & Nutrient Management ............................................................................................................... 152

Well Management Practices ........................................................................................................................... 154

Sediment Discharge and Erosion Control Plan .................................................................................................. 157

Status of Special Projects ........................................................................................................................................... 158

Surface Water Management Plan Updates .................................................................................................... 158

Status of Management Plans ................................................................................................................................ 159

New Management Plans Required After 2018 WY Monitoring ....................................................... 161

Status of TMDLs ........................................................................................................................................................ 162

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report iv | P a g e

Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL .......................................... 162

Salt and Boron TMDL ......................................................................................................................................... 174

Dissolved Oxygen TMDL .................................................................................................................................. 176

Methyl Mercury TMDL ...................................................................................................................................... 180

Surface Water Evaluation of Management Practice Effectiveness........................................................... 183

Beneficial Uses ........................................................................................................................................................... 183

Trends in Coalition Monitoring Data ................................................................................................................ 188

Temporal Trends .................................................................................................................................................. 188

Spatial Trends ........................................................................................................................................................ 191

Efficacy of Implemented Management Practices ........................................................................................ 191

Mitigation Monitoring Report .................................................................................................................................. 192

Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 193

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 193

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 193

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I Pesticide Use Report Data

Appendix II Land Use Maps

Appendix III Norman’s Nursery Management Plan Progress Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Total vs. farmed acres in SJCDWQC counties and available DWR data. ................................... 4

Table 2. SJCDWQC 2018 WY total and irrigated acreages for Zones 1-7. ................................................ 5

Table 3. SJCDWQC First and Second sets of Core sites. .................................................................................. 15

Table 4. Management plan sites and focused outreach schedules. .............................................................. 17

Table 5. Monitoring well sub-area and location. .................................................................................................. 22

Table 6. SJCDWQC 2018 WY monitoring locations. ........................................................................................ 25

Table 7. SJCDWQC 2018 WY land use acreage of site subwatershed and TMDL compliance

locations. ............................................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 8. SJCDWQC 2018 WY storm sampling events. .................................................................................... 33

Table 9. Sample container, volume, and holding times for collection. ........................................................ 37

Table 10. Field parameters and instruments used to collect measurements. ......................................... 38

Table 11. Site specific discharge methods for the 2018 WY. ......................................................................... 38

Table 12. Description of field sampling conditions and monitoring decision. ......................................... 39

Table 13. Field and laboratory analytical methods. ........................................................................................... 40

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report v | P a g e

Table 14. Timeframes of PUR data associated with exceedances of pesticides, metals, sediment

toxicities and water column toxicities. ..................................................................................................... 44

Table 15. Obtained PUR data for 2018 WY exceedances. ............................................................................... 44

Table 16. Pyrethroid and chlorpyrifos LC50 concentrations for sediment analysis. ............................ 45

Table 17. GQTM parameter stabilization criteria. .............................................................................................. 46

Table 18. GQTM field and laboratory analytical methods. .............................................................................. 47

Table 19. SJCDWQC field and transport and analytical completeness: environmental sample

counts and percentages. ................................................................................................................................. 60

Table 20. SJCDWQC field and transport completeness: field parameter counts and percentages.

.................................................................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 21. SJCDWQC field and transport and analytical completeness: field QC counts and

percentages. ........................................................................................................................................................ 62

Table 22. SJCDWQC summary of holding time evaluations for environmental, field blank,

equipment blank, field duplicate and matrix spike samples. ............................................................ 64

Table 23. SJCDWQC summary of field blank (FB) quality control sample evaluations. ..................... 65

Table 24. SJCDWQC summary of equipment blank (EB) quality control sample evaluations. ........ 66

Table 25. SJCDWQC summary of field duplicate quality control sample evaluations. ....................... 67

Table 26. SJCDWQC summary of laboratory blank (LB) quality control sample evaluations. ......... 68

Table 27. SJCDWQC summary of laboratory control spike (LCS) quality control sample

evaluations. .......................................................................................................................................................... 70

Table 28. SJCDWQC summary of lab control spike duplicate (LCSD) quality control sample

evaluations. .......................................................................................................................................................... 71

Table 29. SJCDWQC summary of matrix spike (MS) quality control sample evaluations. ................ 72

Table 30. SJCDWQC summary of matrix spike duplicate (MSD) quality control sample

evaluations. .......................................................................................................................................................... 73

Table 31. SJCDWQC summary of laboratory duplicate quality control sample evaluations. .......... 74

Table 32. SJCDWQC summary of surrogate recovery quality control sample evaluations. ............. 75

Table 33. SJCDWQC summary of toxicity lab control sample evaluations. ............................................. 75

Table 34. Sample dates for sites not sampled during the 2018 WY. ............................................................ 76

Table 35. Water Quality Trigger Limits. ................................................................................................................. 77

Table 36. Zone 1: Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd, Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd, Jahant

Slough @ Cherokee Ln, Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd, Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd,

Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd. .............................................................................................................................. 82

Table 37. 2018 WY Zone 2 MPM and Represented site monitoring. .......................................................... 83

Table 38. Zone 2: Duck Creek @ Hwy 4, French Camp Slough @ Airport Way, Littlejohns Creek @

Jack Tone Rd, Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd, Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd,

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd exceedances. ............................................. 86


Table 40. Zone 3: Drain @ Woodbridge, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, Staten Island Drain @ Staten

Island Rd, Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12. ........................................................................................ 91


SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report vi | P a g e

Table 42. Zone 4: Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, East Orwood Tract Drain, Kellogg Creek along

Hoffman Ln, Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump, South McDonald Island Pump. ........ 95

Table 43. Zone 5: Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave. ...................................................................................... 97


Table 45. Zone 7: Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd and Upper Roberts Island Drain. ..................... 101

Table 46. SJCDWQC network well counts for 2018. ...................................................................................... 102

Table 47. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM field and transport and analytical completeness: well sample

counts and percentages. .............................................................................................................................. 107

Table 48. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM field and transport completeness: field parameter counts and

percentages. ..................................................................................................................................................... 108

Table 49. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM field QC batch completeness: total counts per analyte and

completeness percentages. ........................................................................................................................ 108

Table 50. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of holding time evaluations for environmental, field

blank, and field duplicate samples. .......................................................................................................... 109

Table 51. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of holding time evaluations for environmental

samples for existing data. ............................................................................................................................ 109

Table 52. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of field blank and field duplicate QC sample

evaluations. ....................................................................................................................................................... 110

Table 53. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of laboratory blank, laboratory control sample (LCS),

laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD), matrix spike (MS), matrix spike duplicate

(MSD), and laboratory duplicate QC sample evaluations. ............................................................. 111

Table 54. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM Nitrate results. ......................................................................................... 114

Table 55. SJCDWQC Quarterly Monitoring Report Submittal Schedule. ............................................. 117

Table 56. SJCDWQC 2018 outreach and education activities. .................................................................. 118

Table 57. Performance Goals status for 2017–2019 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds (Duck

Creek @ Hwy 4, Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, and Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd).

............................................................................................................................................................................... 123

Table 58. Performance Goals status for 2018–2020 focused outreach site subwatersheds (East

Orwood Tract Drain, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island

Rd). ....................................................................................................................................................................... 124

Table 59. Performance Goals status for 2019–2021 focused outreach site subwatersheds (Drain

@ Woodbridge Rd, Rindge Tract Drain, Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, South McDonald

Island Pump, and Upper Roberts Island Drain). ................................................................................. 125

Table 60. Tally of members targeted for 2017 Focused Outreach in the Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 site

subwatershed (2017-2019). ...................................................................................................................... 132

Table 61. Tally of members targeted for 2017 Focused Outreach in the Mormon Slough @ Jack

Tone Rd site subwatershed (2017-2019). ............................................................................................ 133

Table 62. Acreages of newly implemented management practices in the Mormon Slough @ Jack

Tone Rd 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatershed (2017-2019). ......................................... 133

Table 63. Tally of members who participated in focused outreach in the Union Island Drain @

Bonetti Rd 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatershed (2017-2019). .................................... 133

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report vii | P a g e

Table 64. Tally of members who participated in 2018 Focused Outreach and require follow-ups.

............................................................................................................................................................................... 134

Table 65. Planned management practices for targeted growers in East Orwood Tract Drain,

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd. .................................. 135

Table 68. Summary of required 2017 FE acreage and memberships. ...................................................... 140

Table 69. Crop standardization table used for analysis of reported crops, shown with the percent

of total reported acres per primary crop. ............................................................................................. 144

Table 70. Acreage associated with 2017 irrigation management questions and responses. ......... 146

Table 71. Count of management units per combination of primary and secondary irrigation

practices. ............................................................................................................................................................ 147

Table 72. Acreage associated with sediment management practice questions and responses. ... 148

Table 73. Pesticide and nutrient management practices implemented by members including

associated parcel acreage and response count. ................................................................................. 152

Table 74. Irrigation well information by membership acreage, member count, and well count. ... 154

Table 75. Acreage associated with abandoned well practices. ................................................................... 155

Table 76. Count of wells abandoned in each year separated by abandonment method. ................. 155

Table 77. SJCDWQC SDEAR associated submittal and approval dates. ................................................ 157

Table 78. Member parcels requiring the SECP due to the RUSLE output value, FE data, and/or

proximity analyses. ........................................................................................................................................ 157

Table 79. Number of complete management plans and submittal/approval dates. ........................... 159

Table 80. Status of SJCDWQC management plan constituents per active site subwatershed. ... 160

Table 81. SJCDWQC exceedance tally based on 2018 WY monitoring results. ................................. 161

Table 82. US EPA approved TMDL documents that apply to waterbodies within the SJCDWQC

boundaries and list agriculture as a potential source. ..................................................................... 162

Table 83. Load capacity sites during the 2018 WY, and the Delta segments. ...................................... 163

Table 84. The 2018 WY TMDL load allocation tributary monitoring sites............................................ 165

Table 85. The 2018 WY TMDL load capacity and load allocation monitoring schedule. ................. 165

Table 86. The 2018 WY TMDL load capacity compliance calculations for nonpoint source

discharges.......................................................................................................................................................... 166

Table 87. The 2018 WY TMDL load allocation compliance calculations for nonpoint source

discharges.......................................................................................................................................................... 167

Table 88. Summary of load capacity and allocation compliance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta Subareas during the 2018 WY. ..................................................................................................... 168

Table 89. Commodities in the SJCDWQC region with the most pounds of chlorpyrifos and

diazinon applied in the 2018 WY (Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties). 170

Table 90. SJCDWQC sites monitored for salts, measured as specific conductance (SC), and nitrate

during the 2018 WY. ..................................................................................................................................... 175

Table 91. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) monitoring results and WQO for tributary sites in Zone 2 during

the 2017 WY. ................................................................................................................................................... 179

Table 92. Proposed 2014 SWRCB Integrated Report de-listings from the 2012 Central Valley

303(d) List as related to waterbodies in the SJCDWQC. ............................................................... 182

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report viii | P a g e

Table 93. Exceedances of WQOs and number of times BUs were impaired during the 2018 WY.

............................................................................................................................................................................... 184

Table 94. Evaluation of beneficial uses for 2008-2018 WY monitoring locations (alphabetical by

Zone). .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

Table 95. Percentages of exceedances of WQTLs for applied metals and pesticides from 2008 -

2018 WY. ........................................................................................................................................................... 190

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. SJCDWQC Zone Boundaries and 2018 WY Core Sites. .................................................................. 6

Figure 2. Zone 1 Land Use. .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3. Zone 2 Land Use. ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Zone 3 Land Use. .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 5. Zone 4 Land Use. ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 6. Zone 5 Land Use. .......................................................................................................................................... 11



Figure 9. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM well locations. ............................................................................................... 21

Figure 10. SJCDWQC 2018 WY monitoring sites and zone boundaries. ................................................. 31

Figure 11. SJCDWQC 2018 WY chlorpyrifos and diazinon TMDL compliance monitoring

locations. ............................................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 12. Precipitation history for Stockton and Modesto, October through December 2017. ... 34

Figure 13. Precipitation history for Stockton and Modesto, January through March 2018. ............ 35

Figure 14. Precipitation history for Stockton and Modesto, April through June 2018. ...................... 36

Figure 15. 2018 GQTM nitrate results with corresponding groundwater well location. ................. 115

Figure 16. East Orwood Tract Drain targeted vs. not targeted member parcels. ................................ 136

Figure 17. Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd targeted vs. not targeted member parcels. ............................... 137

Figure 18. Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd targeted vs. not targeted member parcels. ..... 138

Figure 19. SJCDWQC member parcels associated with one or more FE for the 2017 crop year. 141

Figure 20. General categories of reported crops in 2017 FEs, displayed as percent of total

reported acreage. ........................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 21. A summary of orchard subcategories reported on 2017 FEs. ................................................ 143

Figure 22. A summary of the type of mixed fruit or vegetable row crops associated with 2017 FEs.

............................................................................................................................................................................... 143

Figure 23. Reported acreage associated with irrigation efficiency practices. ...................................... 147

Figure 24. Reported acreage associated with cultural practices implemented to manage sediment

and erosion. ...................................................................................................................................................... 150

Figure 25. Reported acreage associated with irrigation practices implemented to manage

sediment and erosion. .................................................................................................................................. 151

Figure 26. Pesticide management practices implemented by members. ............................................... 153

Figure 27. Nitrogen management practices implemented by members. ............................................... 154

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report ix | P a g e

Figure 28. SJCDWQC 2018 WY Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL load capacity and load

allocation sites. ................................................................................................................................................ 164

Figure 29. Pounds of chlorpyrifos and diazinon applied in the SJCDWQC region from the 2005

WY through the 2018 WY. ......................................................................................................................... 169

Figure 30. Pounds of pesticides applied during the 2018 WY to the top commodities in the

SJCDWQC region. ......................................................................................................................................... 172

Figure 31. Rough and Ready Island (RRI) Dissolved Oxygen measurements and WQO during the

2018 WY. ........................................................................................................................................................... 178

Figure 32. Percentages of impairments of BUs due to exceedances of WQOs during the 2018 WY.

............................................................................................................................................................................... 184

Figure 33. Percentages of exceedances of WQTLs from 2008 through 2018 WY. ........................... 190

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AG Agriculture AI Active Ingredient APN Assessor Parcel Number AQ Aquatic BMP Best Management Practice BU Beneficial Use C Core CalPIP California Pesticide Information Portal CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network COC Chain of Custody CURES Coalition for Urban and Rural Environmental Stewardship CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DO Dissolved Oxygen DPR (California) Department of Pesticide Regulation DQO Data Quality Objective DWR (California) Department of Water Resources DWSC Deep Water Ship Channel EPA Environmental Protection Agency FD Field Duplicate FE Farm Evaluation GAR Groundwater Quality Assessment Report GCC MPEP Group Coordinating Committee GQMP Groundwater Quality Management Plan GQTM Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane ILRP Irrigated Land and Regulatory Program Koc Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient LABQA Laboratory Quality Assurance LC50 Lethal Concentration at 50% mortality LCS Laboratory Control Spike LCSD Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MDL Minimum Detection Limit

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report x | P a g e

MERP Mercury Exposure Reduction Program MLJ-LLC Michael L. Johnson, LLC MPEP Management Practice Evaluation Program MPM Management Plan Monitoring MPN Most Probable Number MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. R5-2008-0005 MRPP Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply NA Not Applicable ND Not Detected NM Normal Monitoring NMP Nitrogen Management Plan NPS Nonpoint Sources NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service OP Organophosphate pesticides PAM Polyacrylamide PCA Pesticide Control Advisor pH Power of Hydrogen PR Percent Recovery PTFE Polytetraflouroethylene (Teflon™) PUR Pesticide Use Report QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control REC 1 Water Contact Recreation RfD Reference Dose RL Reporting Limit RPD Relative Percent Difference RSD Relative Standard Deviation SC Specific Conductance SD Standard Deviation SJCDWQC San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition SG Statistically significantly different from control; greater than 80% threshold SL Statistically significantly different from control; less than 80% threshold SOP Standard operating procedure SWAMP Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWAT Surface Water Assessment Tool TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDS Total Dissolved Solids TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TOC Total Organic Carbon T-R Township-Range TRS Township, Range, Section TSS Total Suspended Solids TU Toxic Unit UC ANR University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources UCCE University of California County Extension VOA Volatile Organic Analyte WQO Water Quality Objective WQTL Water Quality Trigger Limit YSI Yellow Springs Instruments

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report xi | P a g e

LIST OF UNITS

°C degrees Celsius cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter dw dry weight g gram kg kilogram L liter lbs pounds

mg milligram mL milliliter mm millimeter MPN/100mL most probable number per 100 milliliters

ng nanograms NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

sec second µg microgram µg/kg dw microgram per kilogram of dry weight

µm micrometer µmhos micromhos µS microsiemens

LIST OF TERMS

Agricultural Commissioner – County Agriculture Commissioner ArcGIS – Geographic Information Systems mapping software Central Valley– California Central Valley Coalition –San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition Coalition/SJCDWQC region – The region within the Central Valley that is monitored by the San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition Drainage –Water that moves horizontally across the surface or vertically into the subsurface from land General Order (WDR) –Waste Discharge General Order R5-2014-0029-R1 Landowners – One or more persons responsible for the management of the irrigated land Normal Monitoring (NM) – Refers to monitoring described in the most recent Waste Discharge Requirements General Order (WDR or General Order) and approved Monitoring Plan Update (MPU) report. Regional Board – Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Site subwatershed – Starting from the sampling site, all waterbodies that drain, directly or indirectly, into the waterbody before the point where sampling occurs. Special study – A study conducted outside of Normal Monitoring activities that involves monitoring and/or analyzing data for specific constituents in an effort to determine the mechanism responsible for the exceedances; also includes Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) monitoring. Subwatershed – The topographic perimeter of the catchment area of a stream tributary (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) terms of environment: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/sterms.html). Tributary Rule – Beneficial uses for Coalition monitoring sites are applied based on the most immediate downstream waterbody (not applied to constructed agricultural drains such as ones in Delta islands). Waterbody –Standing or flowing water of any size that may or may not move into a larger body of water, including lakes, reservoirs, ponds, rivers, streams, tributaries, creeks, sloughs, canals, laterals and drainage ditches. Watershed – The land area that drains into a stream; the watershed for a major river may encompass a number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine at a common point (EPA terms of environment: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/wterms.html).

http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/sterms.html

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report xii | P a g e

ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS – SECTION KEY

REQUIRED SECTION: ANNUAL MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

UPDATE REPORTS AS OUTLINED IN THE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

GENERAL ORDER (WDR OR GENERAL ORDER) FOR GROWERS WITHIN THE

SAN JOAQUIN AND DELTA AREA (ORDER NO. R5-2014-0029-03)

SECTION NAME/LOCATION – ANNUAL REPORT

1. Signed Transmittal Letter Cover Letter

2. Title page 2019 Annual Report

3. Table of contents

Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Appendices

4. Executive Summary Executive Summary

5. Description of the Coalition Group geographical area Introduction and Geographical Area

6. Monitoring objectives and design Monitoring Objectives and Design

7. Sampling site descriptions and rainfall records for the time period covered under the AMR

Sampling Site Descriptions and Rainfall Records

8. Location map(s) of sampling/monitoring wells, crops and land uses Sampling Site Descriptions and Locations, Appendix II (Land Use Maps)

9. Tabulated results of all analyses arranged in tabular form so that the required information is readily discernible

Attachment A: Monitoring Results

10. Discussion of data relative to water quality objectives/trigger limits, and water quality management plan milestones, Basin Plan Amendment Workplan (BPAW) updates, where applicable

Surface Water Monitoring Results, Status of Management Plans

11. Sampling and analytical methods used Methods

12. Associated laboratory and field quality control samples results Attachment A: Monitoring Results

13. Summary of Quality Assurance Evaluation results (as identified in the most recent version of the third-party’s approved QAPP for Precision, Accuracy and Completeness)

Quality Assurance Evaluation Results

14. Specification of the method(s) used to obtain estimated flow at each surface water monitoring site during each monitoring event

Methods

15. Summary of exceedances of water quality objectives/trigger limits occurring during the reporting period and surface water related pesticide use information

Coalition Actions to Address Exceedances of WQOs/Quarterly Submittals

16. Actions taken to address water quality exceedances that have occurred, including but not limited to, revised or additional management practices implemented

Coalition Actions to Address Exceedances of WQOs and Member Actions to Address Exceedances of WQOs

17. Evaluation of monitoring data to identify temporal and spatial trends and patterns

Evaluation of Management Practice Effectiveness/Surface Water Management Practices/Trends in Coalition Monitoring Data

18. Summary of Nitrogen Management Plan information collected as part of Farm Evaluations

Nitrogen Management Plan Summary Report Analysis (stand-alone document)

19. Summary of management practice information collected as part of Farm Evaluations

Farm Evaluations

20. Summary of mitigation monitoring Mitigation Monitoring Report

21. Summary of education and outreach activities Coalition Actions to Address Exceedances of WQOs and Member Actions to Address Exceedances of WQOs

22. Conclusions and recommendations Conclusions and Recommendations QC- Quality Control SWAMP- Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report xiii

PROGRAMMATIC QUESTIONS – SECTION KEY

PROGRAMMATIC QUESTIONS SECTION NAME/LOCATION – ANNUAL REPORT

1. Are receiving waters to which irrigated lands discharge meeting applicable water quality objectives and Basin Plan provisions?

Surface Water Evaluation of Management Practices Effectiveness /Beneficial Uses

2. Are irrigated agricultural operations causing or contributing to identified water quality problems? If so, what are the specific factors or practices causing or contributing to the identified problems?

Surface Water Monitoring Results

3. Are water quality conditions changing over time (e.g. degrading or improving as new management practices are implemented)?

Surface Water Evaluation of Management Practices Effectiveness /Trends in Coalition Monitoring Data

4. Are irrigated operations of Members in compliance with the provisions of the Waste Discharge Requirement?

Coalition Actions Taken to Address Exceedances/2018 WY Submittals and Approvals/Summary of Required WDR Submittals and Approvals

5. Are implemented management practices effective in meeting applicable receiving water limitations?

Surface Water Evaluation of Management Practices Effectiveness/Efficacy of Implemented Management Practices

6. Are the applicable surface water quality management plans effective in addressing identified water quality problems?

Status of Special Projects/Status of Management Plans

SJCDWQC 2019 Annual Report 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition (SJCDWQC or Coalition) is submitting

the May 1, 2019 Annual Report which includes an update to the Coalition’s Management Plan

Progress Report, management plan implementation schedules/timelines, the 2018 WY monitoring

results, and a record of Coalition outreach activities to meet the requirements of the Waste

Discharge Requirements General Order for Growers within the San Joaquin County and Delta

Area (WDR or General Order; Order R5-2014-0029-03). The primary objectives of the

monitoring program are to characterize discharge from irrigated agriculture and to determine if

implemented management practices are effective in reducing or eliminating discharge and

impairments of beneficial uses (BUs).

The 2019 Annual Report includes updates on the status and methods used to 1) identify

agriculture sources of discharges resulting in exceedances of Water Quality Trigger Limits

(WQTL), 2) track implemented management practices, and 3) document progress toward meeting

its performance goals and management plan implementation schedules and timelines as outlined

in the SJCDWQC Surface Water Quality Management Plan (2015 SQMP; approved November

24, 2015) and Groundwater Quality Management Plan (Conditionally approved January 16,

2018).

SJCDWQC MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY

Surface Water

Based on the WDR monitoring design, Core and Represented sites are designated for each of the

seven zones as defined in the WDR. Core sites establish trends in water quality and are monitored

monthly. The Coalition evaluates the potential risk for water quality impairments at Represented

sites based on exceedances of WQTLs at the associated Core site. In addition, the Coalition

conducts Management Plan Monitoring (MPM) to monitor constituents requiring management

plans. Samples were collected during the 2018 WY at Core, Represented, and MPM sites,

including three storm and two sediment monitoring events. The Coalition also conducted Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) monitoring at the four compliance points for the Sacramento and

San Joaquin Delta diazinon and chlorpyrifos TMDL during one storm event in January, and from

May through August 2018.

Monitoring during the 2018 WY was conducted at sites in the SJCDWQC region according to the

strategy outlined in the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP), Attachment B to the WDR, and

according to Coalition’s 2018 WY Monitoring Plan Update (MPU; addendum approved February

18, 2018). During the 2018 WY, the Coalition monitored 24 sites, including TMDL sites.

Results from monitoring include exceedances of the WQTLs for dissolved oxygen (DO; 86), pH (3),

specific conductivity (SC; 24), E. coli (21), ammonia (4), nitrate + nitrite (1), arsenic (5), bifenthrin

(1), and chlorpyrifos (1). Monitoring also resulted in water column toxicity to S. capricornutum (16).


Exceedances were most common for field parameters (DO, pH, SC). The exceedances and

toxicities in the 2018 WY resulted in five new management plans at three sites.

Groundwater

During October 2018, the Coalition initiated the first round of the Groundwater Trend

Monitoring Program (GQTM). There were 54 groundwater wells identified as part of the GQTM

network. The 2018 groundwater monitoring include results for 44 groundwater wells; the

Coalition was unable to collected samples from 10 groundwater wells due to inability to contact

well owners, lack of access, or lack of well seal information. Groundwater monitoring results

included field parameters (temperature, DO, pH, oxidation-reduction potential), nitrate, and

cation/anions. Members with nitrate concentrations above the 10 mg/L maximum containment

limit (MCL) were advised to consider alternative drinking water sources. Nitrate results ranged

from 0.51 mg/L to 24 mg/L. There were nine groundwater wells with nitrate concentrations above

the MCL.

MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGY

When a management plan is developed for a site subwatershed, additional focused education and

outreach efforts within the site subwatershed are required:

1. Identify members with the potential to discharge to surface waters causing exceedances of

WQTLs of management plan constituents.

2. Review the member’s FE survey from the year prior to initiation of Management Plan

activities to determine number/type of management practices currently in place, and

determine if additional practices are necessary.

3. Hold meetings as necessary to inform members of water quality problems and recommend

additional practices.

4. Review the member’s FE survey from the year following initiation of Management Plan

activities to document number/type of new management practices implemented.

5. Evaluate effectiveness of new management practices.

During the 2018 WY, the Coalition and its members took actions to address requirements of the

WDR and recent water quality impairments. The Coalition submitted multiple documents for

approval to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) to

meet the requirements of the WDR pertaining to Farm Evaluations (FEs), Nitrogen Management

Plans (NMPs), and Sediment and Erosion Control Plans (SECPs). The Coalition also continued its

Focused Outreach process to targeted growers to address exceedances of pesticides. The

Focused Outreach process involves discussing water quality impairments as well as management

practices designed to reduce runoff due to irrigation and stormwater.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, water quality in the Coalition region is improving. The Coalition’s management plan

strategy is effective at identifying water quality impairments, and addressing them through


education, outreach, and implementation of management practices. Improvements in water

quality result in the successful completion of management plans (81 total complete management

plans to date).

Since the initiation of Focused Outreach in 2008, there has been a declining trend in water quality

impairments. However, water quality impairments continue to occur, in part, due to growers

constantly changing land ownership, lease agreements, land use, and the Coalition continually

accepting new members. Also, many of the site subwatersheds in the Coalition region have

significant acreages farmed by non-members who do not receive Focused Outreach, and

contribute to water quality impairments. Until 100% of all growers within the Coalition boundary

are enrolled in membership, water quality may not reflect the effective management practices

implemented by members of the Coalition due to discharges by non-members who have not

implemented similar practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Coalition identified several areas in which CVRWQCB involvement could result in

improvement in water quality in the Coalition region:

1. Identify and regulate dairies in site subwatersheds that are using constituents of concern

which may affect the BUs of downstream waterbodies.

2. Develop and deploy methods to monitor illegal dairy discharges and notify the Coalition of

any known dairy discharges that may result in water quality impairments including nutrient

and E. coli exceedances.

3. Continue enforcement actions against non-members who have the potential to discharge.

4. Move forward with the processes to develop plans to study contamination of surface waters

by E. coli, causes of elevated pH, and low DO.

5. Continue to work with the CV-SALTS process to develop a better understanding of the

sources and sinks of salt in surface and groundwater and potential practices that can be

effective in preventing exceedances.


INTRODUCTION AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

As outlined in the Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Growers within the San

Joaquin County and Delta Area (WDR or General Order; Order R5-2014-0029-03), the San

Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition (SJCDWQC or Coalition) is submitting an

Annual Report for monitoring results from the 2018 Water Year (October 2017 through

September 2018).

The 2019 Annual Report includes sections which address the reporting requirements for the

Monitoring Report (WDR Attachment B) and Management Plan Progress Report (MPPR; WDR

Appendix MRP-1). The Annual Report Requirements Section Key (Page xi) lists the required

components for both reports and their respective location. The Programmatic Questions Section

Key (Page xii) lists the six programmatic questions outlined in the WDR (Attachment A, Page 10)

and where answers to the questions can be found in this report.

The general boundary of the SJCDWQC is defined by the San Joaquin Delta sub-basin to the west,

the Stanislaus River to the south, the Mokelumne River watersheds to the north, and the Sierra

Nevada Mountain Range to the east. The SJCDWQC area includes San Joaquin County and

portions of Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Contra Costa, and Stanislaus Counties. There are

three major rivers in the Coalition area other than the San Joaquin River: the Stanislaus River, the

Calaveras River, and the Mokelumne River. Water is either exported from the Coalition region to

San Francisco Bay through the Delta or conveyed to the south through State (California

Aqueduct) and Federal Water Projects (Delta Mendota Canal). Drainage of site subwatersheds in

the Coalition region is determined using the California Watershed Boundary from the United

States Geological Survey (USGS).

IRRIGATED LAND

Although exact acreage is difficult to estimate due to rapidly changing land use, the Coalition area

includes approximately 2,123,066 acres of which 552,598 acres (26%) are considered irrigated

agriculture (measured in ArcGIS; Table 1). To obtain information on land use acreage, the

Coalition used information from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Land Use

Viewer (https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/).

Table 1. Total vs. farmed acres in SJCDWQC counties and available DWR data.

COUNTY TOTAL COUNTY ACREAGE (MEASURED IN ARCGIS)

FARMED ACREAGE (DWR1)

Alameda 46,563 1,449

Alpine 95,585 0

Amador 135,309 20

Calaveras 663,310 2,035

Contra Costa 184,547 41,027

San Joaquin 889,505 479,762

Stanislaus 108,547 28,305

Total 2,123,066 552,598 1 https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/ (data through 2014).


GEOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND USE

The Coalition area is divided into seven zones to facilitate the implementation of a comprehensive

monitoring program (Figure 1). These zones were designated based on hydrology, crop types, land

use, soil types, and rainfall. Zone acreages were calculated using DWR Land Use Viewer (Table 2).

Zone names were based on the original Core Monitoring locations within the zone (except for

Zone 6): 1) Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd Zone, 2) French Camp @ Airport Way Zone, 3)

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Zone, 4) Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Rd Zone, 5)

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Zone, 6) Contra Costa Zone, and 7) Union Island Drain @

Bonetti Rd Zone. Land use maps for each zone are included in Figures 2 through 8.

Table 2. SJCDWQC 2018 WY total and irrigated acreages for Zones 1-7.

ZONES TOTAL ACRES1

(ARCGIS)

FARMED ACREAGES (DWR2)

Zone 1 : Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd Zone 641,489 97,672

Zone 2: French Camp Slough @ Airport Way Zone 824,498 187,792

Zone 3 : Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Zone 88,095 64,798

Zone 4: Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Zone 154,756 79,643

Zone 5: Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Zone 115,873 59,979

Zone 6: Contra Costa Zone 174,869 822

Zone 7: Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Zone 125,654 74,941

Total 2,125,234 565,647 1Total zone acreages calculated using ArcGIS. Total acres in Table 2 versus the amount reported elsewhere may differ. 2 https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer (data through 2014).


Figure 1. SJCDWQC Zone Boundaries and 2018 WY Core Sites.


Figure 2. Zone 1 Land Use.


SURFACE WATER MONITORING OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN

MONITORING OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the SJCDWQC monitoring program are:

1. Determine the concentration of waste(s) in discharges to surface waters.

2. Evaluate compliance with existing narrative and numeric water quality objectives to

determine if implementation of additional management practices is necessary to improve

and/or protect water quality.

3. Assess the impact of waste discharges from irrigated agriculture to surface water.

4. Determine the degree of implementation of management practices to reduce discharges of

specific wastes that impact water quality in watersheds within the Coalition region.

5. Determine the effectiveness of management practices and strategies to reduce discharges

of wastes that impact water quality.

MONITORING DESIGN

The Coalition conducts Normal Monitoring (NM) at Core and Represented sites to characterize

discharge from irrigated agriculture, Management Plan Monitoring (MPM) to monitor

constituents that require management plans, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) monitoring

to assess TMDL compliance requirements as outlined in the Amendments to the Water Quality

Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Diazinon

and Chlorpyrifos Runoff into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (hereafter referred to as the

Basin Plan Amendment).

During the 2018 WY, the Coalition monitored according to the guidelines outlined and approved

in the 2018 WY Monitoring Plan Update (MPU). The Coalition attempts to sample at least two

storm events per year in order to characterize periods of high flows and stormwater runoff.

Sampling occurred monthly from October 2017 through September 2018, including three storm

and two sediment monitoring events. Storm sampling occurred during the 2018 WY on

November 16, 2017, January 11 and March 10, 2018 (more details on storm monitoring are

included in the ‘Rainfall Records’ section of this report).

Samples are collected for sediment toxicity analysis twice each water year at Core sites and for

sediment toxicity MPM. Sediment samples were collected on March 14, 2018 and September 18,

2018.

Monitoring at Core Sites

Monitoring occurs monthly at designated Core sites in each zone for two consecutive years. After

two years, monitoring rotates to a second set of Core sites in each zone; monitoring continues to

alternate between the two Core sites every two years thereafter (Table 3). The Coalition

monitors at each Core site for the constituents listed in Table 2, Attachment B of the WDR, which


includes monitoring for physical parameters, nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, metals, and water

column and sediment toxicity (monitoring schedule provided in the 2018 WY MPU).

Table 3. SJCDWQC First and Second sets of Core sites. There is no Core site in Zone 6.

SET ZONE STATION NAME

First Set

1 Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd

2 French Camp Slough @ Airport Way

3 Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12

4 Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump

5 Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave*

7 Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd

Second Set

1 Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd

2 Duck Creek @ Highway 4

3 Drain @ Woodbridge Rd

4 Bacon Island Pump @ Old River

5 Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave*

7 Upper Roberts Island Drain

*There is only one Core site in Zone 5, Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave.

Monitoring during the 2018 WY accounted for the second of two consecutive years of monitoring

for the second set Core sites (Table 3). In the 2019 WY, the Coalition will rotate Core sites.

Monitoring at Represented Sites

Monitoring at Represented sites occurs to evaluate the potential risk of water quality

impairments based on pesticide use and when an exceedance of a Water Quality Trigger Limit

(WQTL) occurs at an associated Core site (Attachment B of the WDR, Page 3). The Coalition

identifies potential monitoring locations that represent the hydrological units (HUC12) within

each zone, as specified in the WDR.

In the 2018 WY, the Coalition monitored 14 of 20 Represented sites in the SJCDWQC boundary.

The Coalition did not monitor six Represented sites (Coyote Creek tributary @ Jack Tone Rd,

Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln, Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd, East Orwood Tract Drain, Kellogg Creek

along Hoffman Ln, and South McDonald Island Pump) since the Represented site monitoring

requirements were completed for each site.

The Coalition conducts two types of monitoring at Represented sites, 1) monitoring based on

management plans and 2) monitoring based on pesticide use and/or exceedances that occurred at

the respective Core site. The Coalition conducts MPM as part of its management plan strategy to

evaluate the efficacy of outreach and newly implemented management practices. Once

monitoring is initiated at a Represented site, the Coalition monitors at that site during the time of

the highest risk of exceedances for a minimum of two years.

Monitoring at Special Project Sites


Special project sites include MPM sites that are monitored as part of the Coalition’s Surface

Water Quality Management Plan (SQMP) and sites monitored for TMDL compliance.

There are currently four special project sites with TMDL compliance monitoring in the Delta

region. Monitoring data are collected from TMDL sites to assess compliance according to the

Basin Plan Amendment for chlorpyrifos and diazinon

Management Plan Monitoring Objectives and Design

The objectives of the SJCDWQC SQMP include:

1. Identification of irrigated agriculture source (general practice or specific location) that may

be the cause of the water quality impairment or a study design to determine the source.

2. Identification of management practices to be implemented to address the exceedances.

3. Development of a management practice implementation schedule designed to address the

specific exceedances.

4. Development of management practice performance goals.

5. Development of waste-specific monitoring schedule.

6. Development of a process and schedule for evaluating management practice effectiveness.

As part of the Coalition’s management plan strategy, MPM is conducted to identify contaminant

sources and evaluate the efficiency of newly implemented management practices. For details on

the 2018 WY MPM results, refer to the ‘Status of Management Plans’ section of this report.

Management plans are required as a result of a single exceedance of the WQTL of a TMDL

constituent (DO, SC, boron, chlorpyrifos, and diazinon), or more than one exceedance of a WQTL

within a three-year time period for all other constituents.

The SCJDWQC SQMP identifies when and where monitoring will occur to identify sources,

evaluate effectiveness of management practices, assess performance goals and measures, and

report on compliance time schedules (approved November 24, 2015). In addition, the SQMP

includes management plan implementation schedules and timelines for reporting to the Regional

Board on the effectiveness of the Coalition’s management plan strategy.

The WDR specifies that management plans must be completed in the shortest amount of time as

practical and must not exceed 10 years from the date the management plan is reported to the

Regional Board.

Management Plan Development Timelines

In 2008, the Coalition began addressing site subwatersheds in management plans by conducting

Focused Outreach which is additional outreach and education with growers who use products

that could contribute to the water quality impairments (Table 4). This focused outreach strategy

is effective in improving water quality when members implement additional management

practices. The Coalition continues to conduct Focused Outreach in site subwatersheds based on

when exceedances occur, the magnitude of the exceedance, and the potential sources.


Table 4 includes all site subwatersheds that have received focused outreach and education and

the subwatersheds that will be included during 2019 Focused Outreach.

Table 4. Management plan sites and focused outreach schedules.

MANAGEMENT PLAN SITE SUBWATERSHED NAME PRIORITY SET YEAR FOR FOCUSED

APPROACH

20

08

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Pla

n

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4

First Priority 2008-2010 Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd

Grant Line Canal @ Clifton Court Rd1

Second Priority 2010-2012 Grant Line Canal near Calpack Rd1

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way

Third Priority 2011-2013 Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12

Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln

Fourth Priority 2012-2014 Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd

Sand Creek @ Hwy 4 Bypass

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd

Fifth Priority 2013-2015 Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump2

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Sixth Priority 2014-2016

20

15

SQ

MP

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way 2016

Focused Outreach

2016-2018 Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd



Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 2017 Focused

Outreach 2017-2019 Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd

East Orwood Tract Drain 2018 Focused

Outreach 2018-2020 Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River

2019 Focused

Outreach 2019-2021

Drain @ Woodbridge

Rindge Tract Drain

South McDonald Island Pump

Upper Roberts Island 1Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd replaced the Grant Line Canal sites in the 2015 WY. 2Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump monitoring occurred for all management plan constituents from the two previous sites.


TMDL Monitoring Objectives and Design

In June 2006, the Regional Board finalized the Basin Plan Amendment, establishing a TMDL for

the organophosphate pesticides (OP) chlorpyrifos and diazinon in the Delta. As dictated in the

Basin Plan Amendment, a surveillance and monitoring program was developed by the SJCDWQC

to collect the required information necessary to assess compliance with the seven monitoring

objectives dictated in the Basin Plan Amendment:

1. determine load capacity compliance

2. determine load allocation compliance

3. determine degree of implemented management practices

4. determine effectiveness of implemented management practices

5. determine if alternative pesticides are impairing water quality

6. determine if additive or synergistic effects of multiple pollutants are causing toxicity

7. demonstrate that management practices achieve the lowest pesticide levels technically and

economically achievable

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is divided into seven areas that include agricultural drainages

monitored by the SJCDWQC under the ILRP. The Coalition evaluates compliance with water

quality objectives, loading capacity, and load allocations within the Delta waterway subareas as

well as 303(d) listed waterbodies that are within the SJCDWQC boundaries through

representative monitoring.

The Coalition conducts TMDL monitoring at four Delta monitoring locations to evaluate

compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved TMDL’s for chlorpyrifos,

diazinon, DO, and SC. Further details on Coalition monitoring and activities concerning these

TMDL constituents are included in the ‘Status of TMDLs’ section of this report.


GROUNDWATER MONITORING OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN

The Coalition is responsible for collecting “sufficient data to describe irrigated agricultural

impacts on groundwater quality and to determine whether existing or newly implemented

management practices comply with the groundwater receiving water limitations (Attachment B of

the WDR). The Coalition’s strategy for evaluating groundwater includes 1) a Groundwater

Quality Assessment Report (GAR), 2) a Management Practice Evaluation Program (MPEP), 3) a

Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program (GQTM), and 4) Groundwater Quality

Management Plan (GQMP) that includes Groundwater Protection Targets.

The Coalition submitted all components of the GAR (Phase 1 and Phase 2) on April 27, 2015; it

was conditionally approved on December 18, 2015. The GAR is required to be updated every five

years from the approval date and therefore the next GAR update is scheduled for December 18,

2020. The Coalition submitted a MPEP Work Plan on July 29, 2016, and revised Work Plans on

May 18, 2017, February 15, 2018, and December 3, 2018. The GQTM was conditionally approved

on June 19, 2018. The GQMP was submitted on September 26, 2017 and was conditionally

approved on January 15, 2018. An addendum to the GQMP was submitted on February 15, 2018

to include a discussion of outreach efforts.

MONITORING OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the GQTM are to document the quality of groundwater, and to develop long-

term groundwater quality information that can be used to evaluate the impacts of irrigated

agricultural practices at the regional scale. Data obtained from GQTM activities will be used in

conjunction with data from the GAR and the GQMP to more fully understand the connections

between irrigated agriculture and groundwater quality.

MONITORING DESIGN

The primary objectives of the GQTM design for well selection are to 1) attain a sampling density

that will provide sufficient information about present‐day water quality and future trends and 2)

minimize variability in well types.

The Coalition utilized data and maps from the GAR to prioritize areas for potential locations of

monitoring wells. All available DWR well completion reports for wells within the Coalition region

were obtained. Geostatistical methods and the EPA DRASTIC methodology were used to

delineate areas where groundwater is intrinsically vulnerable to nitrate and other contaminants

moving from land surface in alluvial systems. The DRASTIC methodology accounts for depth to

groundwater, groundwater recharge, aquifer and soil texture, topography, influence of the vadose

zone and aquifer hydraulic conductivity.

The Coalition delineated subareas for trend monitoring by assessing DRASTIC scores. Higher

DRASTIC scores indicate the specific subarea is located in a sensitive or vulnerable area. Well

completion reports and Coalition member parcels were identified for each subarea.


The criteria for the SJCDWQC well selection process in each subarea include 1) determining a

suitable location (within monitoring subarea), 2) surface to groundwater depth must be shallower

than 300 feet, 3) domestic well availability, and 4) availability of a well completion reports with

well construction information.

The Coalition identified 54 wells to include in the GQTM network (Table 5). Of the 54 wells, 42

are Coalition member wells and 12 are California Department of Public Health (CDPH) public

water supply (PWS) wells (Figure 9). The CDPH PWS wells were scheduled for sampling by

separate public entities and the monitoring data were shared with the Coalition.

During the 2018 WY, the Coalition attempted to sample at least one domestic well in each

subarea. Samples were collected from 44 wells (including both member wells and CDPH PWS

wells) and results are included in the ‘Discussion of Groundwater Trend Monitoring Results’

section.


Figure 9. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM well locations.


Table 5. Monitoring well sub-area and location.

FIELD POINT NAME SUBAREA LATITUDE LONGITUDE

SJCDW00001 1aa1 37.7998 -121.0226

SJCDW00002 1b2 38.0395 -121.2518

SJCDW00003 1b3 38.0262 -121.2487

SJCDW00005 1c1 38.0173 -121.1991

SJCDW00006 1c2 38.0147 -121.2215

SJCDW00007 1c3 38.015 -121.2573

SJCDW00008 1dd1 37.8598 -120.9332

SJCDW00009 1e1 37.9958 -121.1616

SJCDW00010 1ee1 37.8034 -120.9576

SJCDW00011 1f1 37.9451 -121.2181

SJCDW00012 1ff1 37.7815 -120.9574

SJCDW00013 1g1 37.9447 -121.1641

SJCDW00014 1gg1 37.8505 -120.9207

SJCDW00015 1h1 37.9337 -121.0761

SJCDW00016 1hh1 37.7924 -120.8913

SJCDW00017 1ii1 37.7822 -120.9144

SJCDW00018 1jj1 37.7815 -120.8456

SJCDW00019 1n1 37.7473 -121.2159

SJCDW00020 1n2 37.7903 -121.2477

SJCDW00021 1o1 37.8198 -121.2285

SJCDW00022 1p1 37.7925 -121.1075

SJCDW00023 1r1 37.7307 -121.1567

SJCDW00024 1s1 37.7795 -121.2477

SJCDW00025 1t1 37.7605 -121.1432



SJCDW00026 1v1 37.7925 -121.1075

SJCDW00027 1w1 37.7547 -121.1025

SJCDW00028 1x1 37.8135 -121.0967

SJCDW00029 1x2 37.8193 -121.1309

SJCDW00030 1y1 37.8664 -121.0412

SJCDW00031 1z1 37.841 -120.9984

SJCDW00032 2a1 37.766 -121.5308

SJCDW00033 2b1 37.6921 -121.4320

SJCDW00034 2d1 37.6891 -121.3607

SJCDW00035 2f1 37.6901 -121.2483

SJCDW00036 3a1 38.1608 -121.3448

SJCDW00037 3a2 38.113 -121.3920

SJCDW00038 3b1 38.1744 -121.3079

SJCDW00039 3b2 38.1629 -121.2592

SJCDW00040 4a1 37.9739 -121.7094

SJCDW00041 4b1 37.9058 -121.7051

SJCDW00042 4e1 37.8664 -121.0771

SJCDW00043 4e2 37.8562 -121.0103

SJCDW00044 4f1 37.9782 -121.0608

SJCDW00046 4f3 38.1733 -121.1789

SJCDW00047 4f4 38.0954 -121.2124

SJCDW00048 4f5 38.1242 -121.1956

SJCDW00049 4f6 37.9124 -121.0266

SJCDW00050 4h1 38.2052 -121.0731

SJCDW00051 4h2 37.8161 -120.6933



SJCDW00052 4h3 38.1905 -121.1041

SJCDW00054 4f9 38.04092 -121.19344

SJCDW00055 4h4 38.042632 -121.00922

SJCDW00057 1bb2 37.75896 -121.05673

SJCDW00058 4i4 38.09991 -121.21511


SURFACE WATER SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONS

The section below includes a narrative description of each site subwatershed with respect to

irrigate acres, hydrology, and agricultural production. Irrigated acres are included in the site

subwatershed descriptions; however, the tally of these acreages is subject to change due to

updated GIS layers, land entering and leaving cultivation, and subwatershed boundary

modifications. Individual site subwatershed maps including sample site location and land use are

provided in the Land Use Maps Appendix II. The site names, zones, sample types, station codes,

and locations of all sites monitored during the 2018 WY are provided in Table 6. Land use for each

site subwatershed monitored during the 2018 WY is listed in Table 7.

Table 6. SJCDWQC 2018 WY monitoring locations.

ZONE SITE TYPE SITE NAME STATION CODE LATITUDE LONGITUDE

Zone 1

Core Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd 531BCANAR 38.07386 -121.21215

Represented Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd* 531CCTALR 38.24082 -121.15200

Represented Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln* 531XJSACL 38.21035 -121.26200

Represented Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd 531XMRABR 38.16022 -121.20643

Represented Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd* 531MCANAR 38.06088 -121.20900

Represented Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd* 531XPSAFR 38.08256 -121.24100

Zone 2

Core French Camp Slough @ Airport Way 531SJC504 37.88172 -121.24933

Represented Duck Creek @ Highway 4 531XDCAHF 37.94949 -121.18208

Represented Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 531XLCAJR 37.88958 -121.14727

Represented Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 531XLTCJR 37.83754 -121.14460

Represented Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Road 544MSAJTR 37.96470 -121.14880

Represented Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 531UDLTAJ 37.85360 -121.14570

Zone 3

Core Drain @ Woodbridge Rd 544DAWRXX 38.15256 -121.50095

Represented Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd 544ETAEMR 38.06012 -121.49912

Represented Rindge Tract Drain 544RDGTRD 38.04553 -121.46933

Represented Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd 544SIDSIR 38.13297 -121.52225

Represented Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 544XTTHWT 38.11558 -121.49380

Zone 4

Core Bacon Island Pump @ Old River 544BIPAOR 37.97916 -121.57023

Represented East Orwood Tract Drain 544EOWDTD 37.92857 -121.56067

Represented Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Lane* 544XKCAHL 37.88188 -121.65221

Represented Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump1 544RIAWSP 37.96737 -121.46434

Represented South McDonald Island Pump 544SMCDIP 37.98928 -121.46285

Zone 5 Core, TMDL Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave 544WSAWAV 37.77046 -121.29227

Zone 6 NA Sand Creek @ Hwy 4 Bypass* 544SCAHFB 37.94750 -121.74300

Zone 7 Core Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd 544UIDABR 37.87170 -121.52551

Represented Upper Roberts Island Drain 544UPRRID 37.81893 -121.35830

NA TMDL Light House Restaurant @ West Brannon Island Rd 510LHRWBI 38.10487 -121.59299

NA TMDL Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd 544ORAWCC 37.84195 -121.53721

NA TMDL San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd 544SJCAWN 37.99493 -121.44173

*Monitoring did not occur at these sites in the 2018 WY due to completion of all Represented site monitoring requirements. 1Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump represented water quality in both Zones 4 and 6. NA- Not Applicable; site is neither a Core nor Represented site. TMDL- Total Maximum Daily Load monitoring.


Table 7. SJCDWQC 2018 WY land use acreage of site subwatershed and TMDL compliance locations. Sites listed alphabetically from Bacon Island Pump @ Old River to Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave. Numbers are rounded to nearest whole number.

LAND USE* BA

CO

N IS

PU

MP

@ O

LD R

IVER

BEA

R C

REE

K @

NO

RTH

ALP

INE

CO

YO

TE C

REE

K T

RIB

UTA

RY

@ J

AC

K T

ON

E R

D

DR

AIN

@ W

OO

DB

RID

GE

DU

CK

CR

EEK

@ H

WY

4

EAST

OR

WO

OD

TR

AC

T D

RA

IN

EMP

IRE

TRA

CT

@ 8

MIL

E R

D

FREN

CH

CA

MP

SLO

UG

H @

AIR

PO

RT

WA

Y

JAH

AN

T SL

OU

GH

@ C

HER

OK

EE L

AN

E

KEL

LOG

G C

REE

K A

LON

G H

OFF

MA

N L

AN

E

LIG

HT

HO

USE

RES

TAU

RA

NT

@ W

EST

BR

AN

NO

N IS

LAN

D

LITT

LEJO

HN

S C

REE

K @

JA

CK

TO

NE

RD

LON

E TR

EE C

REE

K @

JA

CK

TO

NE

RD

MO

KEL

UM

NE

RIV

ER @

BR

UEL

LA R

D

MO

RM

ON

SLO

UG

H @

JA

CK

TO

NE

RD

MO

SHER

CR

EEK

@ N

OR

TH A

LPIN

E R

D

OLD

RIV

ER @

TH

E W

EST

END

OF

CLI

FTO

N C

OU

RT

RD

PIX

LEY

SLO

UG

H @

FU

RR

Y R

D

RIN

DG

E TR

AC

T D

RA

IN

RO

BER

TS IS

LAN

D @

WH

ISK

EY S

LOU

GH

PU

MP

SAN

JO

AQ

UIN

RIV

ER @

WES

T N

EUG

ERB

AU

ER R

D

SAN

D C

REE

K @

HW

Y 4

BY

PA

SS

SOU

TH M

CD

ON

ALD

ISLA

ND

PU

MP

STA

TEN

ISLA

ND

DR

AIN

@ S

TATE

N IS

LAN

D R

D

TER

MIN

OU

S TR

AC

T D

RA

IN @

HW

Y 1

2

UN

ION

ISLA

ND

DR

AIN

@ B

ON

ETTI

RD

UN

NA

MED

DR

AIN

TO

LO

NE

TREE

CR

EEK

@ J

AC

K T

ON

E R

D

UP

PER

RO

BER

TS IS

LAN

D D

RA

IN

WA

LTH

ALL

SLO

UG

H @

WO

OD

WA

RD

AV

E

TOTA

L C

OM

MO

DIT

Y

Citrus and Subtropical 608 0 190 328 58 165 40 25 306 187 4 96 1,286 58 47 3,398

Deciduous Fruits and Nuts 6,112 139 4,968 33,836 49 570 39 9,424 11,225 2,806 17,720 2,691 1,100 634 71 125,331 11 11,528 1,085 229,339

Field Crops 2,221 517 1,118 1,904 503 1,468 17,014 1,503 158 27,177 2,041 4,489 222 923 79 7,322 28 3,448 3,272 32,826 1,096 4,619 4,129 872 7,192 100 3,663 129,904

Grains and Hay 510 61 294 1,037 3,201 148 3,380 1,903 365 14 569 97 2,340 135 771 942 9,053 291 206 102 510 29 160 26,118

Idle 1,576 56 20 105 156 5,823 189 16 6,564 2,160 833 255 1,088 92 5,693 55 17 278 11,407 64 5 2,846 82 39,380

Riparian Vegetation 651 985 155 2,960 255 0 155 5,161

Pasture 1,657 1,924 200 584 926 1,170 13,037 265 42 16,986 3,125 5,355 194 840 427 15,893 1 197 4,124 26,890 756 1,553 1,322 3,459 460 1,525 102,912

Rice 504 898 44 120 75 498 1,426 33 734 4,332

Truck, Nursery, and Berry 871 425 452 1,475 271 679 5,080 4 651 12,304 1,154 270 70 551 19 8,199 9 1,194 1,494 18,757 108 1,059 572 1,543 1,784 713 113 1,055 60,876

Urban 427 65 1,419 1,504 699 418 384 6,252 7,741 67,608 258 86,775

Vineyard 11,753 854 488 2,009 8,022 880 267 572 3,473 614 5,811 4,367 1,312 969 1,852 92 22,742 177 1,554 3,886 213 1 71,908

Young Perennials 1 260 9 170 59 69 421 155 868 22 2,031

*Land use information was obtained from The California DWR Land Use Viewer https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer.

https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer


SITE SUBWATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River (4,750 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed represents drainage

from Bacon Island with the sample site on the eastern limit of the Island. The island borders

Middle River on the east and Old River on the west. Land use is primarily field crops, pasture, and

truck/nursery/berry crops.

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd (29,900 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located on the

northern edge of the Coalition region; the site boundary starts in the northeastern region of San

Joaquin County and includes sections of Calaveras County in the upstream site region. Land use

in the site subwatershed primarily includes deciduous fruits/nuts, pasture, and vineyard.

Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd (1,483 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located in the

northeastern region of San Joaquin County. Coyote Creek Tributary flows into Coyote Creek

which drains to Dry Creek. Land use in the subwatershed consists grains/hay, vineyard, and

pasture.

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd (4,820 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located on the northern

side of the Coalition region. Water from the drain is pumped to the Mokelumne River near the

sample location. The site drains an area of land to the east of the site between Hog Slough and

Sycamore Slough. Land use in the site subwatershed includes field crops, riparian vegetation,

pasture, rice, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 (17,181 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located just to the east of

the city of Stockton. Duck Creek drains a section of southern San Joaquin County between

Stockton and the Lone Tree Creek site subwatershed. During the summer, flow is typically low in

the creek. The predominant land uses for irrigated agriculture are deciduous fruit/nut, field crops,

grains/hay, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

East Orwood Tract Drain (1,944 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located on the eastern

border of Contra Costa County and borders Discovery Bay to the south. The sample site, located

on the eastern side of the island, drains into Old River. Land use is primarily field crops, pasture,

and truck/ nursery /berry crops.

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd (3,145 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed represents drainage from

Empire Tract and the sample site is located at the western pumping station on 8 Mile Rd. The

pump drains water into Little Connection Slough which in turn drains into Potato Slough and then

the San Joaquin River. The primary agriculture in the site subwatershed is field crops, riparian

vegetation, and truck/nursery/berry.

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way (85,265 irrigated acres) – French Camp Slough is formed by the

confluence of Littlejohns Creek and Lone Tree Creek. This site was selected as a downstream

companion site to the Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Road, Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @

Jack Tone Rd, and Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Road sites. These waterbodies drain agricultural

land to the east of Manteca and Stockton and eventually flow through urban areas prior to their

confluence, and discharge to the San Joaquin River. This site includes all of the major types of


agriculture present in the Coalition region including deciduous fruit/nuts, field crops, grains/hay,

pasture, rice, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln (3,561 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located in the

northeastern region of San Joaquin County just south of Dry Creek. Jahant Slough flows into

Tracy Lake which is fed by overflows from Mokelumne River and Dry Creek. Tracy Lake is used

for irrigation by local farmers. The agriculture in the Jahant Slough subwatershed consists mainly

of field crops, pasture, and vineyard.

Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln (1,888 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located just

southwest of Discovery Bay and drains field crops directly upstream. The headwaters originate in

the Black Hills north of Livermore. Kellogg Creek runs through Discovery Bay and drains into

Indian Slough in the western Delta. The agricultural land is primarily deciduous fruit/nuts, field

crops, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Light House Restaurant @ West Brannon Island Rd (70,297 irrigated acres) – This subwatershed is

represented by the drainage from Tyler and Staten Islands to the north, Venice and Bouldin

Islands to the east and south. Islands within the area are bordered by San Joaquin River on the

east, Hwy 4 to the south, and to the west, Discovery Bay and Frank’s Tract State recreational Area.

The primary agriculture in this subwatershed include field crops, pasture, and

truck/nursery/berry.

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd (24,272 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is upstream from

the French Camp Slough @ Airport Way site. The crops in the site subwatershed include all of the

major types of agriculture present in the Coalition region including deciduous fruit/nuts, field

crops, grains/hay, pasture, rice, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd (25,130 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is upstream from the

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way site. Lone Tree Creek drains a large portion of the southern

SJCDWQC region and confluences downstream with Littlejohns Creek eventually French Camp

Slough, where it flows through urban areas before emptying into the Delta. The main agricultural

land use upstream consists of deciduous fruit/nuts, field crops, and pasture.

Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd (10,302 irrigated acres) – The amount of water released from the

Comanche Reservoir controls water flow in the Mokelumne River. Water in the Mokelumne River

integrates the water quality signal from a relatively large upstream area. Upstream agriculture

consists of vineyards that are primarily irrigated by drip systems and orchards irrigated by micro-

spray. The main agricultural land uses include deciduous fruit/nuts and vineyard.

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd (27,628 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located in the

eastern portion of San Joaquin County and extends upstream into Calaveras County. The primary

crops consist of deciduous fruit/nuts and vineyard.

Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd (6,529 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed lies between Bear

Creek to the north and Calaveras River to the south. It flows through the northern portion of

Stockton before merging with Bear Creek and flowing into San Joaquin River. The subwatershed

lies east of Stockton and the primary crops are deciduous fruit/nuts, pasture, and vineyard.


Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd (38,632 irrigated acres) – This subwatershed is represented

by drainage from Fabian Tract south of Clifton Court Rd. The subwatershed borders the San

Joaquin River on the eastern edge, Highways 120, 205, and 580 to the southern edge, and the

foothills on the western side of San Joaquin Valley. The primary agriculture in this subwatershed

includes deciduous fruit/nuts, field crops, grains/hay, pasture, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd (3,437 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located in the

northeastern portion of San Joaquin County just north of Bear Creek. Downstream of the

subwatershed boundary, Pixley Slough and Bear Creek merge into Disappointment Slough which

then flows into San Joaquin River. This small subwatershed consists mainly of deciduous

fruit/nuts and vineyard.

Rindge Tract Drain (6,121 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is bordered by the San Joaquin

River on the west and Disappointment Slough on the north. Disappointment Slough receives

water from Bear Creek and Pixley Slough. The sample location on Rindge Tract is the pumping

station located on the northwestern portion of the island, just upstream of where Disappointment

Slough flows into San Joaquin River. The primary agriculture in the site subwatershed includes

field crops and truck/nursery/berry.

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump (10,111 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed drains the

entirety of Roberts Island north of Hwy 4 by a pump station located along McDonald Road on the

western edge of the island. The primary agriculture upstream of the sample site includes field

crops, pasture, and truck/nursery/berry.

Sand Creek @ Hwy 4 Bypass (164 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located west of

Brentwood at the intersection of Hwy 4 Bypass and Sand Creek. The Roddy Ranch Golf Club,

located off Empire Mile Rd in Horse Valley, is adjacent to an upstream tributary of Sand Creek. In

recent years, there has been significant urban development consisting of new residential

neighborhoods and shopping outlets areas to the east and west of Highway 4 Bypass. The USDA

Cropland Data layer from 2009 (http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm)

indicates there are approximately 25 acres of corn, wheat, safflower, alfalfa, tomatoes, and

pasture and grassland.

San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd (243,971 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed drains all

of the acreage within the Coalition boundary that is south of West Neugerbauer Rd, east of the

San Joaquin River, and south of the Mokelumne Aqueduct. Native vegetation accounts for

approximately 40% of the land use in this subwatershed. The irrigated acres include deciduous

fruit/nuts, field crops, pasture, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

South McDonald Island Pump (3,579 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is bordered on the east

by the San Joaquin River and located north of Hwy 4. The sample site is located at the pumping

station on the southeast side of the island draining into Turner Cut which flows into the San

Joaquin River. The primary agriculture includes field crops and truck/nursery/berry.

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd (5,773 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located on the

northwest region of San Joaquin County and is bordered by the North and South Mokelumne

Rivers. The sample location is located on the southern portion of the island draining the lower half


of the island. The irrigated agriculture in this site subwatershed include field crops, pasture,

truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 (9,787 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed drains all of the

acreage north and south of State Highway 12 on Terminous Tract. This sampling site is located

near the confluence of White Slough/Potato Slough and the Mokelumne River. The primary

agricultural crops are field crops, pasture, truck/nursery/berry, and vineyard.

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd (5,006 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located east of

Clifton Court Forebay and is bordered by North Canal to the north and Grant Line Canal on the

south. The sample location is the pumping station located on the north side and drains into the

North Canal. The irrigated agriculture is primarily field crops, pasture, and truck/nursery/berry.

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd (35,827 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is

located to the north of the Lone Tree Creek site subwatershed and south of Littlejohns Creek. The

drain forms in east San Joaquin County and flows west eventually converging with Lone Tree

Creek, just west of Jack Tone Rd. The irrigated agriculture consists of deciduous fruit/nuts, field

crops, pasture, and vineyard.

Upper Roberts Island Drain (1,088 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located west of I-5 and

north of I-205. The sample location is on the pumps located on the southern portion of the island

and drain into Old River. The agriculture in this site subwatershed consists primarily of pasture

and vineyard.

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave (8,624 irrigated acres) – This site subwatershed is located just

upstream of the residential area at the confluence of Walthall Slough and the San Joaquin River.

The site subwatershed drains land to the south and to the east of the San Joaquin River. Land use

includes deciduous fruit/nuts, field crops, pasture, and truck/nursery/berry.

SAMPLE SITE LOCATIONS

All site subwatersheds (Core and Represented sites) monitored during the 2018 WY are

presented in Figure 10 relative to the seven different zone boundaries. The map in Figure 11

includes the four SJCDWQC Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL compliance monitoring locations.


Figure 10. SJCDWQC 2018 WY monitoring sites and zone boundaries.


Figure 11. SJCDWQC 2018 WY chlorpyrifos and diazinon TMDL compliance monitoring locations.


RAINFALL RECORDS

In the SJDCWQC region, a storm monitoring event is defined as monitoring within three days of a

rainfall event that exceeds 0.5 inch within 24 hours. If a storm is forecasted within a week before

a scheduled sampling event, or predicted within two days after the scheduled sampling event, the

Coalition moves its sampling date to capture the storm. Storm monitoring events must be

captured at least twice a year. Stormwater monitoring criteria must be identified based on

precipitation levels and knowledge of soils or other factors affecting when stormwater runoff is

expected to occur. The collection of storm samples is not contingent on the timing of other

prescheduled sampling events and may result in monitoring more than once a month.

The Coalition monitoring may not capture every storm event due to the following reasons, 1)

sample dates and laboratory analyses could not be moved to coincide with expected runoff, 2)

monitoring schedules were not changed to capture the storm because rainfall was not predicted

to reach the rainfall trigger limit, 3) even though the trigger was met, there was no evidence of

runoff due to a lack of moisture in the soils, and 4) a storm event was already captured for the

month of concern. During the 2018 WY, the Coalition sampled three storm events (November 16,

2017, January 11, 2018, and April 10, 2018; Table 8).

Figure 12,through Figure 14,provide daily rainfall records from October through June for

Stockton and Modesto, the two major cities in the Coalition region. There were no storms record

from July through September 2018.

Table 8. SJCDWQC 2018 WY storm sampling events. Precipitation calculations are for the accrued amount of precipitation (in inches) before sampling occurred.

SAMPLE DATE PRECIPITATION (INCHES)

Stockton Modesto

11/16/2017 0.51 0.46

1/11/2018 2.1 1.7

4/10/2018 1.36 1.78


Figure 12. Precipitation history for Stockton and Modesto, October through December 2017. The shaded gray area represents the rainfall trigger limit to initiate sampling: 0.25”- 0.5” rain in 24 hours. All weather data reported on http://www.wunderground.com/.


Figure 13. Precipitation history for Stockton and Modesto, January through March 2018. The shaded gray area represents the rainfall trigger limit to initiate sampling: 0.25” - 0.5” rain in 24 hours. All data reported on http://www.wunderground.com/.


Figure 14. Precipitation history for Stockton and Modesto, April through June 2018. The shaded gray area represents the rainfall trigger limit to initiate sampling: 0.25” - 0.5” rain in 24 hours. All data reported on http://www.wunderground.com/.


METHODS

The sections below describe the sampling, analytical, and sourcing methods utilized during the

2018 WY.

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING METHODS

Sample containers, volumes, and holding times are provided in Table 9. Table 10 lists the

instruments used to measure field parameters and Table 11 references methods and equipment

used to measure discharge. Discharge was measured at all sites following USGS R2 Cross

Streamflow Method except for three of the TMDL monitoring sites (San Joaquin River @ West

Neugerbauer Rd, Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd, and Light House Restaurant @

West Brannon Island Rd). Discharge measurements for these three TMDL compliance sites were

obtained online using their respective CDEC stations (http://cdec.water.ca.gov). The CDEC

discharge measurements were recorded onto the field sheets and entered into the database and

represent discharge at the time closest to the sample site collection time.

Table 9. Sample container, volume, and holding times for collection.

GROUPS ANALYTICAL

PARAMETER

SAMPLE

VOLUME1 SAMPLE CONTAINER

INITIAL PRESERVATION/HOLDING

REQUIREMENTS

HOLDING

TIME2

Ph

ysi

cal

Pa

ram

ete

rs Total Suspended

Solids 2000 mL 1x 2000 mL polyethylene Store at <6°C 7 days

Turbidity 7 days

Total Organic Carbon

120 mL 3x 40 mL amber glass VOA

with PTFE-lined cap Preserve with HCl, store at <6°C 28 days

Nu

trie

nts

Ammonia and Nitrate-Nitrite as N

500 mL 1x 500 mL polyethylene Store at <6°C, preserve to pH < 2 with

H2SO4 28 days

Soluble Orthophosphate

2000 mL 1x 2000 mL polyethylene Store at <6°C 48 hours

Me

tals

Metals/Trace Elements, Hardness

500 mL 1x 500 mL polyethylene Filter as necessary; store at <6°C,

preserve to ≤pH 2 with HNO3 180 days

Dri

nk

ing

W

ate

r

E. coli (pathogens)3 100 mL 1x 100 mL polyethylene Preserved with Na2S2O3, store at <8 °C 24 hours

Pe

stic

ide

s

Carbamates 1 L 2x 1L amber glass Jar Store at <6°C; extract within 7 days 40 days

Herbicides 1 L 2x 1L amber glass Jar Store at <6°C; extract within 7 days 40 days

Organophosphates 1 L 2x 1L amber glass Jar Store at <6°C; extract within 7 days 40 days

Paraquat 500 mL 1x 500 mL polyethylene Store at <6°C; extract within 7 days 21 days

Glyphosate 80 mL 2x 40 mL amber glass VOA

with PTFE-lined cap Store at <6°C; freeze (-20°C) within 2

weeks 6 months

Chlorpicrin 120 mL 3x 40 mL amber glass VOA

with PTFE-lined cap Preserve with HCl, store at <6°C 14 days

Ziram 1 L 2x 1L amber glass Jar Store at <6°C; extract within 7 days 7 days

Wa

ter

an

d

Se

di

me

nt

Co

lum

n

To

xic

ity

Aquatic Toxicity 3 gallons 3x 1 gallon amber glass jar Store at <6°C 36 hours

Sediment Toxicity 2 L 2x 1L clear glass jar Store at <6°C, do not freeze 14 days

Sediment Grain Size 8 oz. 1x 250 mL glass jar Store at <6°C, do not freeze 28 days


GROUPS ANALYTICAL

PARAMETER

SAMPLE

VOLUME1 SAMPLE CONTAINER

INITIAL PRESERVATION/HOLDING

REQUIREMENTS

HOLDING

TIME2

Sediment Total Organic Carbon

8 oz. 1x 250 mL glass jar Store at <6°C (not frozen), analyze or

freeze (-20C) within 28 days

28 days (not

frozen) 12 months (frozen)

Sediment Chemistry 8 oz. 1x 250 mL amber glass jar Store at <6°C (not frozen), freeze within

48 hours 12 months

Sediment Total Solids

8 oz. 1x 250 mL glass jar Store at <6°C 7 days

1 Additional volume may be required for Quality Control (QC) analyses. The sample volume listed for aquatic toxicity represents the

volume collected for a single species. 2 Holding time is after initial preservation or extraction. 3 Samples for E. coli analyses are set up as soon as possible.

Table 10. Field parameters and instruments used to collect measurements. PARAMETER INSTRUMENT

Dissolved Oxygen YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

Temperature YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

pH YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

Specific Conductance YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

Flow Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000 YSI- Yellow Springs Instruments

Table 11. Site specific discharge methods for the 2018 WY. Sites organized alphabetically.

SITE DISCHARGE METHOD1 METER/ GAUGE

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Duck Creek @ Highway 4 USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

East Orwood Tract Drain USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Lane USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Light House Restaurant @ West Brannon Island Rd

Discharge from CDEC station2 San Joaquin River at Prisoners PT

NR Terminous gauge

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Road USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd Discharge from CDEC station2

Old River at Clifton Court Intake gauge

Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Rindge Tract Drain USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd Discharge from CDEC station2 Rough and Ready Island gauge

Sand Creek @ Hwy 4 Bypass USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

South McDonald Island Pump USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000


SITE DISCHARGE METHOD1 METER/ GAUGE

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000


USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Upper Roberts Island Drain USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave USGS R2Cross Streamflow Method Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000 1USGS R2 Cross Streamflow Method is only conducted when the stream is safe to wade across. Observed flow is recorded for every

site. 2Discharge from CDEC station retrieved from website (http://cdec.water.ca.gov).

Sample Collection Details

Complete monitoring results, sample locations, sampling dates, sampling times, and type of

monitoring are included in Attachment A. Results are provided for field parameters, organics

(pesticides), inorganic constituents, including metals, nutrients, and E. coli, toxicity (water and

sediment), and sediment chemistry. Monitoring data include results from samples taken for MPM,

NM, sediment monitoring, high total suspended sediment (High TSS), and TMDL compliance

monitoring.

The Coalition is required to sample every site scheduled for monitoring, as outlined in the 2018

WY MPU; however, certain field conditions can prevent samples from being collected. Table 12

lists the sampling conditions that can occur and the sampling exceptions that result in no sample

collection. During the 2018 WY, the determination of whether to collect water and sediment

samples was determined based on the conditions outlined in Table 12. The Quality Assurance

Project Plan (QAPP) Amendment for field sampling procedures ensures the Coalition is collecting

highest quality and most representative samples for the waterbody (approved April 12, 2017).

The Coalition monitored Core sites in November 2017, January 2018, July 2018 xx, and August

2018 during the 2018 WY to capture storm/high TSS events (including additional samples for

glyphosate, paraquat, and metals analysis), as outlined in the 2018 WY MPU.

Table 12. Description of field sampling conditions and monitoring decision. If no samples were collected, the sampling event is considered “Dry”.

SAMPLING

CONDITIONS DEFINITION SAMPLING EXCEPTIONS

COLLECT

WATER

SAMPLES?

COLLECT

SEDIMENT

SAMPLES?

Contiguous

Waterbody connected upstream and

downstream of the sample site.

None: enough water to collect required samples. Yes Yes

Too Shallow: waterbody is <6 inches deep. No Yes

Hard Bottom: no sediment present or hardpan sediment only.

Yes No

Non-contiguous

Waterbody not connected upstream or

downstream of the sample site.

None: water is puddled; however, there is enough volume present to collect required samples.

No1 Yes

Too Shallow: waterbody is puddled and <6 inches deep.

No Yes

Hard Bottom: no sediment present or hardpan sediment only.

No No

Dry None: Sediment has enough moisture to collect

required samples. No Yes


SAMPLING

CONDITIONS DEFINITION SAMPLING EXCEPTIONS

COLLECT

WATER

SAMPLES?

COLLECT

SEDIMENT

SAMPLES?

No water present or not enough volume present

to collect required samples.

Dry: no water present or not enough volume present to collect required samples.

No No

1 Starting in May 2017, samples were not collected from non-contiguous waterbodies when the puddle-like condition was not

representative of the waterbody.

SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL METHODS

Surface water analytical methods and reporting limits (RLs) are provided in Table 13. All field

sampling and analytical methods were performed as outlined in the Standard Operating

Procedures (SOPs) provided in the QAPP. Any deviations from these procedures are documented

in the ‘Quality Control Results’ section of this report.

Table 13. Field and laboratory analytical methods.

GROUP CONSTITUENT MATRIX ANALYZING

LABORATORY REPORTING

LIMIT MINIMUM

DETECTION LIMIT ANALYTICAL

METHOD

Ph

ysi

cal P

ara

me

ters

Discharge Fresh Water Field Measure 1 cfs NA USGS R2Cross

Streamflow Method

pH Fresh Water Field Measure 0.1 NA EPA 150.1

Dissolved Oxygen Fresh Water Field Measure 0.1 mg/L NA SM 4500-O

Specific Conductivity Fresh Water Field Measure 100 µS/cm NA EPA 120.1

Temperature Fresh Water Field Measure 0.1 °C NA SM 2550

Turbidity Fresh Water Caltest 0.05 NTU 0.02 NTU EPA 180.1

Total Suspended Solids Fresh Water Caltest 3 mg/L 2.0 mg/L SM 2540 D

Ino

rga

nic

s Hardness Fresh Water Caltest 5 mg/L 1.7 mg/L SM2340C

Dissolved Organic Carbon Fresh Water Caltest 0.5 mg/L 0.3 mg/L SM 5310 B

Total Organic Carbon Fresh Water CalTest 0.5 mg/L 0.3 mg/L SM 5310 B

Ba

cte

ria

E. coli Fresh Water Caltest 1 MPN/100 mL 1 MPN/100 mL SM 9223 B

To

xic

ity

Water Column Toxicity Fresh Water AQUA-Science NA NA

EPA 821-R-02-012 &

EPA 821-R-02-013

Sediment Toxicity Sediment AQUA-Science1 NA NA EPA 600/R-99-064

Pe

stic

ide

s

Glyphosate Fresh Water NCL 5 ug/L 1.7 ug/L EPA 547M

Paraquat Fresh Water NCL 0.4 ug/L 0.12 ug/L EPA 549.2M

Ziram Fresh Water NCL 5 ug/L 1 ug/L EPA 630

Chlorothalonil Fresh Water APPL 0.2 ug/L 0.1 ug/L EPA 8081A

Endosulfan I Fresh Water APPL 0.01 ug/L 0.005 ug/L EPA 8081A

Endosulfan II Fresh Water APPL 0.01 ug/L 0.004 ug/L EPA 8081A

Iprodione Fresh Water APPL 0.25 ug/L 0.1 ug/L EPA 8081A




LIMIT MINIMUM


METHOD

Oxyfluorfen Fresh Water APPL 0.05 ug/L 0.008 ug/L EPA 8081A

Atrazine Fresh Water APPL 0.5 ug/L 0.1 ug/L EPA 8141A

Chlorpyrifos Fresh Water APPL 0.015 ug/L 0.0026 ug/L EPA 8141A

Diazinon Fresh Water APPL 0.02 ug/L 0.004 ug/L EPA 8141A

Dimethoate Fresh Water APPL 0.1 ug/L 0.08 ug/L EPA 8141A

Malathion Fresh Water APPL 0.1 ug/L 0.03 ug/L EPA 8141A

Pendimethalin Fresh Water APPL 0.1 ug/L 0.04 ug/L EPA 8141A

Simazine Fresh Water APPL 0.5 ug/L 0.12 ug/L EPA 8141A

Trifluralin Fresh Water APPL 0.05 ug/L 0.036 ug/L EPA 8141A

Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4-

Fresh Water APPL 0.5 ug/L 0.15 ug/L EPA 8151A

Chloropicrin Fresh Water NCL 10 ug/L 7.4 ug/L EPA 8260BM

Bifenthrin Fresh Water Caltest 0.0005 ug/L 0.0001 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Cyfluthrin, total Fresh Water Caltest 0.0005 ug/L 0.0002 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- Fresh Water Caltest 0.0005 ug/L 0.0002 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Cypermethrin, Total Fresh Water Caltest 0.0005 ug/L 0.0002 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total

Fresh Water Caltest 0.001 ug/L 0.0002 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Fenpropathrin Fresh Water Caltest 0.0005 ug/L 0.0002 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Permethrin, Total Fresh Water Caltest 0.01 ug/L 0.002 ug/L EPA 8270M_NCI

Carbaryl Fresh Water APPL 0.07 ug/L 0.05 ug/L EPA 8321A

Diuron Fresh Water APPL 0.4 ug/L 0.2 ug/L EPA 8321A

Imidacloprid Fresh Water APPL 1 ug/L 0.5 ug/L EPA 8321A

Methiocarb Fresh Water APPL 0.4 ug/L 0.2 ug/L EPA 8321A

Methomyl Fresh Water APPL 0.07 ug/L 0.05 ug/L EPA 8321A

Oryzalin Fresh Water APPL 0.4 ug/L 0.2 ug/L EPA 8321A

Ethalfluralin Fresh Water NCL 0.01 ug/L 0.0038 ug/L NCL ME 321

Acetamiprid Fresh Water NCL 0.02 ug/L 0.0031 ug/L NCL ME 340

Clothianidin Fresh Water NCL 0.02 ug/L 0.038 ug/L NCL ME 340

Cyprodinil Fresh Water NCL 0.02 ug/L 0.0031 ug/L NCL ME 340

Flumioxazin Fresh Water NCL 0.02 ug/L 0.017 ug/L NCL ME 340

Pyraclostrobin Fresh Water NCL 0.02 ug/L 0.034 ug/L NCL ME 340

Me

tals

Arsenic (Total) Fresh Water Caltest 0.5 ug/L 0.06 ug/L EPA 200.8

Cadmium (Dissolved) Fresh Water Caltest 0.1 ug/L 0.05 ug/L EPA 200.8

Copper (Dissolved) Fresh Water Caltest 0.5 ug/L 0.15 ug/L EPA 200.8

Lead (Dissolved) Fresh Water Caltest 0.25 ug/L 0.06 ug/L EPA 200.8

Molybdenum (Total) Fresh Water Caltest 0.3 ug/L 0.05 ug/L EPA 200.8




LIMIT MINIMUM


METHOD

Nickel (Dissolved) Fresh Water Caltest 0.5 ug/L 0.06 ug/L EPA 200.8

Selenium (Total) Fresh Water Caltest 1 ug/L 0.07 ug/L EPA 200.8

Nu

trie

nts

Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) Fresh Water Caltest 0.05 mg/L 0.030 mg/L EPA 353.2

Soluble Orthophosphate Fresh Water Caltest 0.01 mg/L 0.0060 mg/L SM 4500-P E

Total Ammonia Fresh Water Caltest 0.1 mg/L 0.040 mg/L SM 4500-NH3C

Se

dim

en

t

Bifenthrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.1 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Chlorpyrifos Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.12 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Cyfluthrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.11 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Cypermethrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.06 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Deltamethrin: Tralomethrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.1 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Esfenvalerate Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.12 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Fenpropathrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.13 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Lambda-Cyhalothrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.07 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Permethrin Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.11 ng/g dw EPA 8270M_NCI

Piperonyl Butoxide Sediment Caltest 0.33 ng/g dw 0.03 ng/g dw EPA 8270

Total Organic Carbon Sediment Caltest2 500 mg/Kg dw 100 mg/Kg dw EPA 9060

Grain Size Sediment Caltest2 0.01% 0.01% Plumb, 1981, GS

CFS- Cubic Feet per Second MPN- Most Probable Number NA- Not applicable 1 Subcontracted to Nautilus Laboratory. 2 Subcontracted to PTS Laboratory.


SURFACE WATER SOURCING METHODS

If an exceedance of the WQTL for a constituent occurs, the Coalition attempts to source and

identify 1) the location of the applications of the product containing the constituent of concern

(PUR data), and 2) the chemical and class of the toxicant in the sample through Toxic Identification

Evaluations (TIEs) and additional sediment chemistry. The sections below explain the methods

used for sourcing constituents when exceedances of WQTLs occur.

The Coalition submitted preliminary analyses for constituents not easily sourced according to the

timetable in the 2015 SQMP to the Regional Water Board for DO and pH (submitted February 22,

2016), arsenic and copper (March 23, 2016), ammonia and nitrates (April, 22, 2016), lead, DDE,

DDT, dieldrin, and HCH (May 20, 2016) which are pending review/approval.

Pesticide Use Report Data

The Coalition retrieves PUR data from each of the County Agricultural Commissioner’s offices.

Preliminary PUR data are uploaded to a relational database maintained by the Coalition and the

pesticide application data are then associated with active ingredients (AIs) that could have caused

the exceedances of specific constituent’s WQTLs. The database links registered products to AIs

and calculates pounds of AIs per acre based on the use reported by growers to their County

Agricultural Commissioner.

If an exceedance of a WQTL occurs for a pesticide, the PUR database is queried for the timeframe

within 30 days prior to sampling to determine what applications of the product containing the

pesticide occurred. The PUR data are also mapped to determine if the applications occurred

within the relevant direct drainage area of the site subwatershed and within 200 yards of the

waterbody.

To assess possible sources of toxicity, applications of pesticides known to be toxic to the test

species are identified based on a variety of factors including organic carbon partitioning

coefficient (Koc), chemical type, mode of action, and solubility. If water column toxicity occurs,

pesticides with a relatively low Koc (below 1900) are evaluated and the PUR database is queried

for pesticides applied within 30 days prior to sampling. If sediment toxicity occurs, pesticides with

a relatively high Koc (1600 or greater) are considered potential causes and the PUR database is

queried for applications within 90 days prior to the date of toxicity. The PUR database is queried

for applications of pyrethroids within 180 days prior to the date of toxicity (water column or

sediment) due to the long half-life of these chemicals. The database is queried for applications of

metals within 90 days prior to exceedances (Table 14). If no applications can be linked to the

exceedance or toxicity in the specified time period, the PUR database is queried to identify

applications made an additional 30 days prior to the date of the exceedance.

The PUR database cannot be queried for applications of chemicals and metals that are no longer

applied and/or are considered legacy pesticides.


Table 14. Timeframes of PUR data associated with exceedances of pesticides, metals, sediment toxicities and water column toxicities.

EXCEEDANCE TYPE PUR DATA TIMEFRAMES

Pesticides 30 days

Metals 90 days

Sediment Toxicity 90 days with 180 days for pyrethroids

Water Column Toxicity 30 days with 180 days for pyrethroids and 90 days for metals

All PUR data associated with 2018 WY exceedances are included in Appendix I with tables and

maps of pesticide applications relevant to the exceedances. When PUR data for counties are

unattainable, the Coalition makes a note in the appendix; any outstanding PUR data are submitted

in the following year’s Annual Report. For the 2018 WY, there were no outstanding PUR data.

Information about PUR data obtained for the 2018 WY is included in Table 15.

All PUR data received from the counties are preliminary. It is possible for preliminary data to

include zeroes or blank cells in the pounds AI per acre column of the PUR appendix (Appendix I).

Preliminary data do not include the pounds of AI per acre and therefore it must be calculated

based on the amount applied and area reported. Accurate calculations require proper units for

the amount of AI applied and area treated; if preliminary data contain errors in the amount

applied, these calculations cannot be performed and the result is a blank cell for AI per acre.

Values recorded as ‘zero’ in the pounds AI per acre column are due to values less than 0.0001

being rounded to zero during the calculation process; this occurs when the amount of chemical

applied to an acre is extremely small. The original data are not rounded; pounds AI per acre

derived from calculations are the only rounded values.

Table 15. Obtained PUR data for 2018 WY exceedances. COUNTY 2018 WY PUR DATA OBTAINED 2018 WY PUR DATA OUTSTANDING

Contra Costa October 2017 through September 2018 Complete

San Joaquin October 2017 through September 2018 Complete

Stanislaus October 2017 through September 2018 Complete

Toxic Identification Evaluations

Toxicity in samples collected in the Coalition region is primarily caused by pesticides and cationic

metals. The Coalition performs TIEs on water column samples when survival or growth of the

target organism is 50% or less compared to the control. The goal of the TIE is to identify the

chemical class of toxicant(s) in the test sample that are responsible for the toxicity. The TIE results

can be analyzed to determine the toxic units (TUs) in the sample. Consequently, based on the

responses to manipulations of the sample performed during the TIE, the Coalition is able to

identify causes of toxicity to broad chemical classes, e.g. pyrethroids, organophosphates, nonpolar

organics, or cationic metals. A Phase III TIE is performed to further identify the concentrations of

constituents present in the samples exhibiting toxicity; a Phase III TIE can only occur if chemistry

data are collected in conjunction with toxicity sampling. The Coalition does not conduct TIEs on

every sample and, when performed, the samples may lose toxicity. In cases where toxicity is lost,

TIEs are not able to identify the class of compound responsible for the toxicity.

Sediment Chemistry Analysis


Sediment samples are analyzed for the presence of pyrethroids, piperonyl butoxide (PBO), and

chlorpyrifos when toxicity to H. azteca occurs and survival is less than 80% compared to the

control. Pyrethroids readily bind to sediment and a small portion of what binds to sediment

partitions off into pore water becoming bioavailable to H. azteca. The additional sediment

chemistry results are used to determine if sediment-bound pyrethroids and chlorpyrifos were

bioavailable at concentrations that could cause toxicity. The amount of pyrethroids contributing

to sediment toxicity can be evaluated using the TUs for the acute endpoint (TUa) calculation (TUa

formula: pesticide concentration / %TOC / LC50) based on the LC50s of chemicals determined to

cause acute toxicity to H. azteca (LC50=1 TUa). In other words, the LC50 is the lethal

concentration at which 50% mortality of the test species occurs. The Coalition utilized the

pyrethroid and chlorpyrifos LC50 concentration values in Table 16 (Amweg et al., 2005 and

Weston et al., 2013) to determine the TUs in sediment samples where additional chemistry

analyses were performed. Sediment chemistry results are discussed in the ‘Surface Water

Monitoring Results’ section.

Table 16. Pyrethroid and chlorpyrifos LC50 concentrations for sediment analysis. SEDIMENT PESTICIDE LC50 (µG/G OC) SOURCE

Bifenthrin 0.52 Amweg et al. 2005

Chlorpyrifos 4.16 Weston et al. 2013

Cyfluthrin 1.08 Amweg et al. 2005

Cyhalothrin, lambda 0.45 Amweg et al. 2005

Cypermethrin 0.38 Weston et al. 2013

Deltamethrin 0.79 Weston et al. 2013

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate 1.54 Amweg et al. 2005

Permethrin 10.83 Amweg et al. 2005 LC50- the lethal concentration at which 50% mortality of the test species occurs. OC- Organic Carbon

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING METHODS

All samples were collected according to the methods detailed in the SJCDWQC preliminary

GQTM QAPP SOPs (submitted December 19, 2016). These methods are summarized below.

Upon arrival at the well, an attempt is made to measure the depth to groundwater. Groundwater

levels are measured using an electronic sounder or an air line; air lines have been installed on

some agricultural supply wells and can be used to determine depth to water. When possible, it is

preferred to use an electronic sounder and record the depth to groundwater to the nearest 0.01

feet. Typically, all depth measurements are made from the top (the highest point) of the inner well

casing. The measuring point location is recorded on the field sheet and used in all subsequent

measurements. If there is no measuring point or access to the inside of the well, it is noted on the

field data sheet that no measurement was taken due to inaccessibility to measuring point.

Field parameters (pH, water temperature, electronic conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential,

and dissolved oxygen) are measured using field meters specified in the individual QAPP. The

meters are calibrated for pH, ORP, and DO once in the morning prior to beginning sampling.

Calibration standards are maintained at temperatures close to the temperature of the well water.


Groundwater monitoring wells are purged prior to sample collection to remove stagnant water

within the well casing and to ensure a representative sample is obtained. In general, three casing

volumes of water are purged prior to sampling. The field sheet includes details for tracking the

volume purged relative to the depth of the well. Other methods for ensuring water collected is

representative of groundwater include monitoring field parameters with a flow-through system,

or using a no-purge sampler such as a Hydrasleeve. The criteria used to determine if

measurements are stable is indicated in Table 17. Samples are collected in appropriate containers

and in accordance to proper preservation requirements listed in Table 18. If a sample has a final

turbidity greater than 10 it is filtered in the field using a 0.45 micron filter. After samples are

collected, they must be kept away from sunlight and kept at ≤ 6°C until extraction or analysis. Ten

percent of the samples collected are utilized for quality assurance purposes (field duplicate and

blank samples). Field blank samples are collected using deionized water and the same sampling

methods as environmental samples. Samples are delivered to appropriate laboratories in a timely

manner to ensure holding time requirements are met.

Table 17. GQTM parameter stabilization criteria. CONSTITUENT CRITERIA FOR STABILIZATION INSTRUMENT

Dissolved Oxygen ±10% YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

Electrical Conductivity (EC) at 25°C ±3% YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)* ±10 mV YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

pH ±0.1 units YSI Model 556 and Professional Plus

GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL METHODS

Groundwater analytical methods and reporting limits (RLs) are provided in Table 18. Any

deviations from these procedures are documented in the ‘Quality Assurance Evaluation Results’

section in the ‘Discussion of Groundwater Trend Monitoring Results’ section of this report.


Table 18. GQTM field and laboratory analytical methods.

CONSTITUENT LABORATORY ANALYTICAL

METHOD MATRIX FRACTION

SAMPLE

VOLUME SAMPLE

CONTAINER PREPARATION PRESERVATIVE

MAXIMUM

HOLD TIME MDL RL UNIT

Field Parameters

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) MLJ Environmental SM4500-O GW Unfiltered NA NA None None NA NA 0.01 mg/L

Electrical Conductivity (EC) at 25 °C

MLJ Environmental EPA 120.1 GW Unfiltered NA NA None None NA NA 2.5 μS/cm

pH MLJ Environmental EPA 150.1 GW Unfiltered NA NA None None 15 minutes NA 0.1 pH units

Temperature MLJ Environmental SM2550 GW Unfiltered NA NA None None NA NA 0.1 °C

Depth to standing water (static water level)

MLJ Environmental NA GW Unfiltered NA NA None None NA NA NA ft

Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)

MLJ Environmental NA GW Unfiltered NA NA None None NA NA NA mV

Turbidity MLJ Environmental EPA180.1 GW Unfiltered NA NA None None NA NA 1 NTU

Nutrients

Nitrate + Nitrite as N CalTest EPA 353.2 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene Field Acidified H2SO4 28 days 0.07 0.1 mg/L

Anions

Carbonate CalTest SM 2320B GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene None None 14 days 1.6 10 mg/L

Chloride CalTest EPA 300.0 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene None None 28 days 0.2 1.0 mg/L

Bicarbonate CalTest SM 2320B GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene None None 14 days 1.6 10 mg/L

Sulfate (SO4) CalTest EPA 300.0 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene None None 28 days 0.1 0.5 mg/L

Cations

Boron CalTest EPA 200.8 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene Field Acidified HNO3 6 months 0.002 0.002 mg/L

Calcium CalTest EPA 200.8 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene Field Acidified HNO3 6 months 0.02 0.05 mg/L

Magnesium CalTest EPA 200.8 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene Field Acidified HNO3 6 months 0.005 0.05 mg/L

Potassium CalTest EPA 200.8 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene Field Acidified HNO3 6 months 0.02 0.05 mg/L

Sodium CalTest EPA 200.8 GW Unfiltered* 500 mL Polyethylene Field Acidified HNO3 6 months 0.02 0.05 mg/L

Solids

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

CalTest EPA 160.1 GW Unfiltered 500 mL Polyethylene None None 7 days 4 10 mg/L

*Samples with a final turbidity measurement >10 NTU will be filtered in the field.


SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

The sections below include an assessment of completeness, precision, and accuracy for data

generated from samples collected during the 2018 WY. Precision, accuracy, and completeness are

evaluated based on Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) as outlined in the QAPP. Tables

Table 19 through Table 21 include counts and percentages for completeness per method and

analyte for the 2018 WY. Table 22 includes a summary of holding time evaluations and Table 23

through Table 34 include counts of each measure of precision and accuracy evaluated. All flagged

data (did not meet MQOs) are reviewed for overall quality on batch and sample levels and

assessed for usability. Ninety percent of the samples collected and analyzed must meet the

acceptability criteria. This section details the instances when MQOs were not met for at least 90%

of the samples and includes rationale for accepting the data.

All results that do not meet MQOs are flagged using California Environmental Data Exchange

Network (CEDEN) codes. The Coalition works with the Central Valley Regional Data Center (CV

RDC) to ensure all data are CEDEN comparable. Data generated for the 2018 WY are included in

Appendices III and IV.

COMPLETENESS

Completeness is assessed on three levels: field and transport, analytical, and batch completeness.

Field and transport completeness is based on the number of samples successfully collected and

transported to the appropriate laboratories. Field and transport completeness may be less than

100% due to bottle breakage during sample transport to the laboratory or inability to access a site.

Waterbodies that lack enough water to collect samples (e.g. dry or noncontiguous) are considered

“sampled” and are counted towards field and transport completeness. Analytical completeness is

based on the number of samples successfully analyzed by the laboratory. Analytical completeness

may be less than 100% due to bottles breaking while at the laboratory or if an analysis failed or

was not performed due to laboratory error. Batch completeness assesses whether chemistry and

toxicity batches were processed with the required QC samples as prescribed in the QAPP.

Field and Transport Completeness

Field and transport completeness for environmental samples was 100% for the 2018 WY (Table

19). Field parameter measurements (DO, pH, SC, and water temperature) were taken at each site

for all sampling events when there was enough water for sample collection. Field measurement

completeness was 100% for all field parameters (Table 20).

Discharge is either measured by sampling crews or obtained from gauge stations (Table 11). Field

and transport completeness is only assessed for discharge where sampling crews collect the

measurement. When a waterbody has no measurable flow or is non-contiguous, discharge is

recorded as 0 cfs and is counted toward the total number of measurements taken for discharge

completeness (Table 20). When samples are only collected for toxicity at a location, discharge is

not measured because an instantaneous load does not apply to toxicity; these situations do not

count toward the total number of samples scheduled when assessing discharge field and transport


completeness (Table 20). Discharge may not be measured when the waterbody is too deep to

safely take flow readings or equipment failure occurs; these instances are counted against the

total number of measurements taken. Discharge was not measured at sites due to the waterbody

being unsafe to take flow readings a total of 41 times which occurred at 13 sites one or more times

during 11 different events. Additionally, online discharge was not available from the CDEC

station at Rough and Ready Island for the August 21, 2018 sampling event. Completeness for

discharge was 70.2% for the 2018 WY (Table 20).

Field duplicate, field blank, and equipment blank samples are collected by sampling crews in the

field and transported to the laboratories. These field QC samples are collected during each event

as described in the QAPP. Equipment blanks are collected as necessary to evaluate potential

sources of contamination. At a minimum, each type of field QC samples must comprise 5% of the

samples collected.

Field QC samples were collected at a frequency greater than 5% for each type of field QC. Field

QC samples ranged from 6.8% to 40% of the environmental samples collected depending on

analyte and type of field QC (Table 21); there was a single exception which was for chloropicrin.

Chloropicrin field QC sample collection was originally scheduled for two events during the 2018

WY; in both cases the site was dry. Therefore, there were no field duplicate or field blanks

collected for chloropicrin (see corrective actions below for further discussion).

Analytical Completeness

During the 2018 WY, all samples submitted to a laboratory were analyzed, therefore, analytical

completeness was 100% (Table 19).

Batch Completeness

Each chemistry and toxicity analytical batch must be processed with a minimum set of QC samples

as prescribed in the QAPP. Batch completeness is determined based on whether or not all

required QC samples were run with every batch. Chemistry and toxicity batches met batch

completeness requirements in 99.6% (233 of 234) batches analyzed in the 2018 WY.

The EPA method 8141 batch analyzed for the October 17, 2017 monitoring event was missing

matrix spike samples. Matrix spikes for this batch were inadvertently omitted from the extraction

batch due to laboratory error. The Coalition reiterated batch requirements to the laboratory and

matrix spikes were included with all EPA method 8141 batches moving forward. The batch was

accepted based on the laboratory control spike recoveries.

Hold Time Compliance

Each sample must be stored, extracted (if applicable), and analyzed within a specific timeframe to

meet hold time requirements as outlined in Table 22. Results associated with hold time violations

are flagged in the database.

During the 2018 WY, 100% of samples were analyzed within hold time, with the exceptions of

dimethoate and simazine (Table 22). Fifty-two percent (9 of 17) of dimethoate samples were


analyzed within the prescribed hold time. Seventy-seven percent (7 of 9) of simazine samples

were analyzed within the prescribed hold time. All hold time violations for both analytes were a

part of the EPA 8141 analysis for the March 14, 2018 sampling event and, in both cases, the hold

times were not met due to a re-extraction and reanalysis for those samples. Dimethoate and

simazine both recovered below the lower control limit in the LCS, MS, and MSD samples in the

original batch that was analyzed within the hold time. The samples were reextracted for

dimethoate and simazine 21 days after sample collection and all control sample recoveries were

within control limits. There was a detection of simazine in the environmental sample at Bear

Creek at North Alpine Rd in the re-extracted batch. The detection was 0.26 µg/L, which was

below the reporting limit of 0.5 µg/L, and therefore the result was flagged as an estimated

value. Though the hold time violation may have resulted in lower detections of simazine, the

result was still significantly below the WQTL and therefore accepted. The batch with acceptable

control recoveries re-extracted outside of hold time was reported and all data were accepted and

are useable.

PRECISION AND ACCURACY

Precision and accuracy are evaluated for each type of QC sample analyzed during the 2018 WY in

Tables Table 23 through Table 33 including:

• Evaluation of blank samples (field blank, equipment blank, and laboratory blank) – Table 23,

Table 24, and Table 26;

• Evaluation of field precision for chemistry, toxicity, and grain size – Table 25 and Table 34;

• Evaluation of laboratory accuracy (laboratory control spikes, matrix spikes, and surrogates)

– Table 27, Table 29, and Table 32;

• Evaluation of laboratory precision (LCSD, MSD, and laboratory duplicate) – Table 28, Table

30, and Table 31; and

• Summary of negative control toxicity tests – Table 33.

During the 2018 WY, each batch was processed with a combination of any of the following QC

samples: field blank, equipment blank, laboratory blank, matrix spike (MS), laboratory control

spike (LCS), laboratory duplicate, field duplicate, and/or an appropriate set of surrogate samples.

Blank samples are analyzed to determine sources of contamination either during sample

collection (field blanks and equipment blanks) or during laboratory processing and analysis

(laboratory blanks). Percent recoveries in LCS, CRM, MS, and surrogate samples are calculated to

assess laboratory accuracy through the comparison of measured results to known concentrations

of the target or comparable analytes. Relative percent differences (RPDs) are calculated on

laboratory duplicate samples (including LCS and MS duplicates) to assess analytical precision.

RPDs are also calculated on field duplicates to assess field sampling precision.

When a concentration of a chemical constituent in an environmental sample exceeds the highest

point on a calibration curve, a dilution of the sample is required. The laboratory reports the result

of the diluted sample multiplied by the dilution factor to represent the concentration of the

analyte detected in the original sample. All diluted samples are flagged accordingly in the


database. The reporting limit (RL) associated with a diluted sample is multiplied by the dilution

factor, thereby, increasing the RL. Therefore, for each dilution that occurs, there is a

corresponding increase in the limit of quantitation.

The RLs are established according to QAPP guidelines and reflect the lowest value laboratory

instruments can reliably measure. Although instruments can detect analytes below the RL,

accurate detections become less reliable and results reported below the RL are associated with

variability. Laboratories report all detections, even when analytes are detected at concentrations

below the RL. When the concentration of an analyte is reported below the RL and above the

Method Detection Limit (MDL), the result is reported as an estimated value and flagged in the

laboratory report with a “J Flag” and assigned a “DNQ” code in the database.

An evaluation of the precision and accuracy for each analyte or group of analytes is discussed in

the sections below. Batches are accepted by evaluating all measures of precision and accuracy.

Justification for accepting 2018 WY data when MQO acceptability criteria fell below 90% is

provided in each analyte section. Overall, precision and accuracy criteria were met for more than

90% of the samples for all criteria and all data are considered usable.

Chemistry

E. coli: Quality control samples analyzed for E. coli include field and laboratory blanks, and field

and laboratory duplicates. In addition, sterility checks, positive/negative controls, and

positive/positive controls are analyzed in each batch. Precision for E. coli is evaluated using the

range of logarithms (Rlog) for each pair of duplicates. The MQO is determined by calculating the

mean Rlog of at least 20 duplicate results and multiplying this value by 3.27.

The laboratory calculated the range of logarithms using both Coalition and non-Coalition samples

with the same sample matrix, resulting in a mean Rlog of 0.40 and an acceptable limit for E.coli of

Rlog ≤1.30. All field and laboratory duplicates had an Rlog ≤1.30 and all results for field and

laboratory blanks were non-detect. All E. coli results reported were accepted and are useable.

Hardness as CaCO3 (dissolved): Hardness is analyzed in samples that are also analyzed for

dissolved metals. The hardness measured in the sample is used to calculate the hardness-based

WQTLs for dissolved metals. Quality control samples for hardness include field and laboratory

blanks, field duplicates, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate samples (usually an LCSD or MSD).

Acceptability was met for 9 of 9 (100%) laboratory blanks, 5 of 5 (100%) field blanks, 5 of 5 (100%)

field duplicates, 9 of 9 (100%) LCS, 20 of 20 (100%) MS, and 10 of 10 (100%) MSD samples. All

hardness data were accepted and are useable.

Metals (dissolved): All metals are analyzed following the EPA method 200.8. Samples collected

for dissolved metals are filtered through a 0.45 µm filter and preserved with nitric acid to measure

the dissolved fraction. Dissolved metal samples are analyzed with the following QC: field blank,

equipment blank, laboratory blank, field duplicate, MS, LCS, and laboratory duplicate samples.

Dissolved metals analyzed during the 2018 WY include cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel.

Acceptability criteria for all dissolved metals were met in 100% field blanks, 100% of equipment

blanks, 100% of laboratory blanks, 100% of LCS, 100% of MS samples, and 100% of MSD samples.


Acceptability was met in 100% of field duplicate samples, with the exception of dissolved lead,

where field duplicate acceptability was met in 2 of 4 (50%) samples.

Field duplicate RPDs exceeded the acceptable limit of 25% during the January 11, 2018 (FD RPD

= 67%) and August 21, 2018 (FD RPD = 29%) sampling events. In both cases the samples were

collected from Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Rd. The environmental and field duplicate results

for the January 11 event were 0.14 µg/L and 0.07 µg/L. The environmental and field duplicate

results for the August 21 event were 0.09 µg/L and 0.12 µg/L. All four results were flagged as

DNQ, as they were all below the RL of 0.25 µg/L. For both events, the high field duplicate RPDs

were likely due to variability caused by measurements below the quantifiable range of the

instrument. All dissolved metals data were accepted and are useable.

Metals (total): Total metals analyzed during the 2018 WY included arsenic, molybdenum, and

selenium. Quality control samples analyzed for total metals include laboratory and field blanks,

field duplicates, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate samples. Acceptability criteria for all total

metals were met in 100% field blanks, 100% of laboratory blanks, 100% of LCS, 100% of MS

samples, and 100% of MSD samples. Acceptability was met in 100% of field duplicate samples,

except for selenium, where field duplicate acceptability was met in 2 of 4 (50%) samples.

Selenium field duplicates failed to meet acceptability criteria during the November 16, 2017 (FD

RPD = 52%) and the August 21, 2018 (FD RPD = 27%) sampling events. In both of the batches

associated with the high RPDs, the environmental samples and field duplicate samples had

detections that were below the method RL of 1 µg/L and were flagged as DNQ. The resulting high

RPD values are likely due to the variability associated with estimated results reported below the

quantifiable limit. All other batch QC for both sampling events were within acceptable limits for

selenium. All total metals data were accepted and are useable.

Nutrients: Nutrients analyzed in water samples include ammonia as N, nitrate + nitrite as N, and

orthophosphate as P. Quality control samples for these constituents include laboratory blanks,

field blanks, field duplicates, LCS, MS, and an MSD or LCSD. Acceptability criteria were met for

100% of QC samples analyzed for orthophosphate as P. Acceptability criteria were also met for

100% nitrate + nitrite as N and ammonia as N samples analyzed in field blanks, lab blanks, LCSs,

LCSDs, and MSDs. Field duplicate acceptability was met for 12 of 12 (100%) of samples analyzed

for nitrate + nitrite as N and for 9 of 12 (75%) ammonia as N samples. MS acceptability was met

for 20 of 26 (76.9%) of samples analyzed for nitrate + nitrite as N and for 30 of 30 (100%) of

samples analyzed for ammonia as N.

Field duplicate RPDs were above the acceptable limit of 25% for ammonia as N in samples

collected at French Camp Slough at Airport Way on October 17, 2017 and on November 16, 2017,

and at Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave on July 17, 2018. The RPD for the October 17 event

was slightly above the limit at 27%, with an environmental result of 0.21 mg/L and the field

duplicate result of 0.16 mg/L. All other batch QC samples met MQOs and the data were accepted.

For the November and July events, the RPDs were 29% and 46%, respectively. In both instances

the environmental and field duplicate ammonia as N concentrations were reported below the RL

of 0.1 mg/L and considered estimated values. The high RPDs observed during these two events


are both likely the result of the variability of concentrations measured below the RL. All ammonia

as N results were accepted and are useable.

Matrix spike samples recovered slightly below the acceptable limit of 90% for nitrate + nitrite as N

for both replicates collected for the February 20, 2018 sampling event, with the MS recovering at

88% and the MSD at 89%. The LCS recovered within control limits at 98%. All samples were non-

detect and the data were accepted based on other batch QC.

A single MS sample analyzed for nitrate + nitrite as N recovered below the acceptable limit of 90%

for the April 10, 2018, June 19, 2018, and August 21, 2018 sampling events. The MS sample

recoveries for each event were 88%, 86%, and 86%, respectively. In all three batches the MSD and

LCS samples recovered within the acceptable limits. All three batches were accepted based on the

duplicate and LCS recoveries. All nitrate + nitrite as N samples were accepted and are useable

Pesticides in water: Pesticide monitoring occurs based on the results of the PEP. Using this

protocol, pesticide sample collection requirements are determined based on a set of criteria such

as pesticide application information, available analytical methods, environmental fate evaluations,

and aquatic life and human health reference values. The outcome of the PEP is detailed within the

Monitoring Plan Update submitted on August 1 of each year.

Pesticides in the 2018 water year were analyzed with the following methods as outlined in the

QAPP:

• Organochlorines by EPA 8081A • Organophosphates and triazines by EPA 8141A • Chlorinated herbicides by EPA 8151A • Solvent-extractable non-volatiles by EPA 8321A • Pyrethroids by EPA 8270M with negative chemical ionization • Volatiles by EPA 8260BM • Glyphosate by EPA 547M • Paraquat by EPA 549.2M • Dithiocarbamates by EPA 630 • Assorted pesticides by NCL ME 321 • Assorted pesticides by NCL ME 340

Quality control samples for pesticides in the water column include field blanks, field duplicates,

laboratory blanks, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate samples (usually an LCSD or MSD).

Acceptability criteria for pesticides in water samples are evaluated per each analyte. For each

analyte, 100% of field blank and laboratory blank samples met the acceptability criteria.

Although acceptability criteria were not achieved in 100% of the field duplicate, LCS, LCSD, MS,

and surrogate samples, most analytes met the 90% acceptability requirement for the WY. The

exceptions are outlined below.

The following pesticides failed to meet the 90% acceptability threshold: MS recoveries for

chlorothalonil (8 of 10, 80%); MS RPDs for 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (5 of 6, 83.3%); LCS

and MS recoveries for dimethoate (3 of 4, 75% and 4 of 5, 80%, respectively); field duplicate RPDs

for diuron (2 of 3, 66.7%); LCS and MS recoveries and LCS RPDs for ethalfluralin (7 of 8, 87.5%, 4

of 8, 50%, and 3 of 4, 75%, respectively; LCS and MS recoveries and MS RPDs for oryzalin (3 of 4,


75%, 7 of 8, 87.5%, and3 of 4, 75%, respectively); MS and LCS recoveries for paraquat (0 of 6, 0%

and 5 of 6, 83.3%); LCS recoveries in pyraclostrobin (0 of 2, 0%); and MS recoveries and MS RPDs

for trifluralin (7 of 8, 87.5% and 3 of 4, 75%). Each instance is discussed below.

Chlorothalonil MS samples recovered below the acceptable limit of 41% in both replicates for the

March 14, 2018 sampling event. Both the MS and the MSD recovered at 34.2%. The associated

LCS recovered within limits at 64.8%. The batch was accepted based on the LCS recovery which

was within the acceptable limits. All chlorothalonil results were accepted and are considered

useable.

The MSD RPD for 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) samples collected for the October 17,

2017 sampling event was above the acceptable limit of 25% (RPD = 60.1%). The MS recovered at

128% and the MSD recovered at 77.8%, both of which were within control limits. All

environmental samples were non-detect, and the batch was accepted based on the other QC

samples. All 2,4-D results were accepted and are considered useable.

Dimethoate recovered above the acceptable limit of 170% in the LCS for the August 21, 2018

sampling event, with a recovery of 928%. Both MS replicates recovered within control limits and

all environmental results were non-detect. The high recovery in the LCS could be an indication

that detections in the environmental samples are biased high; however, since all the results were

non-detect this is not a concern.

The MS/MSD RPD for dimethoate was above the acceptable limit of 25% for the September 18,

2018 sampling event. The MS recovered at 70% while the MSD recovered at 97.2%, resulting in

an RPD of 32.5%. Both MS replicates were within the acceptable recovery control limits and all

environmental results were non-detect; therefore, the batch was accepted. All dimethoate results

were accepted and are useable.

Field duplicate RPDs for diuron were above the limit of 25% for samples collected at French Camp

Slough for the January 11, 2018 sampling event (FD RPD = 28.6%). The environmental result was

0.28 µg/L and the field duplicate result was 0.21 µg/L, resulting in an RPD of 28.6%. Both results

were below the RL of 0.4 µg/L and are considered estimated values. The high RPD is likely a result

of the variability of concentrations measured below the RL. All other batch QC met acceptance

criteria. All diuron results were accepted and considered useable.

Ethalfluralin recovered below the acceptable limit of 50% in the LCS for the April 10, 2018

sampling event with a recovery of 27%. In the same analytical batch, both the MS and MSD

recovered below the lower control limit, with recoveries of 43.4% and 48.1%, respectively. The

LCSD sample recovered within control at 55.7%, and both the MSD and LCSD RPDs were within

the acceptable range. The batch was acceptable based on the LCSD recovery and RPD results

which were within limits.

The ethalfluralin LCS/LSCD RPD was above the acceptable limit of 30% at 45% for the May 15,

2018 sampling event. Both LCS replicate recoveries were within control limits at 99.5% and

62.7%. In the same analytical batch, MS and MSD recoveries were below the 50% threshold at

40.7% and 45.4% recoveries; however, the MS/MSD RPD was within the acceptable limit of 30%

at 10.8%. The batch was accepted based on acceptable QC for both precision and accuracy. See


corrective actions below for further discussion on ethalfluralin results. All ethalfluralin data were

accepted and are useable.

The LCS recovery for oryzalin was above the upper control limit of 144% for the April 10, 2018

sampling event with a recovery of 155%. For the same batch, the MS sample also recovered above

the limits at 170%, while the MSD was within control limits at 120% recovery. The resulting

MS/MSD RPD was also above the acceptable limit (25%) at 34.8%. All environmental samples

were non-detect and were not affected by the high recoveries. All oryzalin data were accepted

and are useable.

Paraquat samples were collected during two storm events (November 16, 2017 and January 11,

2018) and one irrigation event (July 7, 2018). Of the three paraquat batches analyzed, all six MS

and MSDs recovered below the lower control limit of 70%. The MS and MSD samples from the

November and January storm event all recovered at 0% for the original analysis. For both events,

the MS was re-extracted outside of hold times. For the November event, an MS and an MSD were

included in the re-extraction batch, with the MS recovering within control limits and the MSD

recovering slightly below the lower control limit at 65.5%. A single MS sample was included with

the re-extraction for the January event, which recovered within the acceptable recovery limits.

The LCS and LCSD recoveries for both batches were within control limits and all environmental

sample results were non-detect for both the original analyses and re-analyses. The MS and MSD

recoveries were slightly below the lower control limit for samples collected during the irrigation

event on July 17, 2018 with an MS recovery of 67.5% and an MSD recovery of 62.4%. One LCS

recovery in this batch was also below the control limit at 67.5%, while the LCSD was within limits

at 77.9%. The entire batch was re-extracted with the re-extracted MS recovering slightly below

the lower control limit at 67.7% and the MSD recovering within limits at 70.3%. Both LCS and

LCSD recoveries in the re-extracted batch were within the acceptable range. All environmental

samples were non-detect for both analyses.

Reduced MS recoveries occurred in all three paraquat batches due to increased sediment

observed in the sample matrix. Paraquat strongly adsorbs to soil particles that are suspended in

water, which renders the herbicide chemically inactive. When bound with soil particles, the

extraction procedure for method EPA 549.2 is ineffective at isolating the bound paraquat, making

paraquat samples prone to matrix interference from turbid samples. All paraquat data were

accepted based on LCS recoveries and are considered useable.

Both the LCS and LCSD recoveries for pyraclostrobin failed to meet the lower control limit of 50%

for the May 15, 2018 sampling event (LCS = 36.2%, LCSD = 35.5%). Both MS samples recovered

within the acceptable limits, and all environmental samples were non-detect. The laboratory

informed the Coalition that, due to laboratory error, this batch had been run by a different method

than the method outlined in the QAPP. Pyraclostrobin analysis is usually done by NCL ME 340

(LC/MS/MS); however, this sample was run by NCL ME 342 (HPLC/MS/MS). While both methods

can detect the analyte, the LC/MS/MS methodology is preferred and generally produces better

results. The laboratory also informed the Coalition that the response of the reporting limit

standard was such that the analyte would have been detected even with the low recoveries. The

batch was accepted based on the MS and MSD recoveries. All other pyraclostrobin batches


included QC that met all acceptability criteria. All pyraclostrobin data were accepted and are

useable.

Trifluralin recovery in the MS sample was above the acceptable limit of 148% for the March 14,

2018 sampling event, with a recovery of 161%. The MSD recovered within limits at 112%, as did

the LCS at 111%. The MS/MSD RPD was also above the acceptable limit (25%) at 35.4%. All

associated environmental results in the batch were non-detect and were not affected by the high

recoveries. All trifluralin samples were accepted and are useable.

Pyrethroid pesticides in water: Pyrethroid pesticides are analyzed by EPA Method 8270 with

negative chemical ionization (NCI) as separate analytes. For each pyrethroid analyte, organic

carbon results are used to calculate the biologically available fraction, which is then compared to

the concentration goals outlined in the TMDL Pyrethroid Basin Plan Amendment. Any

combination of the following pyrethroid analytes may be analyzed during the 2018 WY based on

the PEP analysis: bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin,

esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, fenpropathrin, and permethrin.

For each of these analytes, 100% of field blank, field duplicate, laboratory blank, LCS, LCSD, and

MS samples met acceptability criteria. One-hundred percent MSD samples met acceptability

criteria, with the exceptions of bifenthrin (8 of 9, 88.9%) and lambda-cyhalothrin (7 of 8, 87.5%).

Each are discussed below.

The one set of MS/MSD RPD for bifenthrin exceeded the acceptable limit of 35% for the July 17,

2018 sampling event with an RPD of 157%. The MS and MSD recovered at 46% and 57%, both of

which were within the acceptable limits of 15-130%. The same analytical batch also had another

set of MS/MSD samples that met the RPD acceptability criteria with an RPD of 4.1%. The LCS and

LCSD recovered within limits at 102% and 91%, respectively. The RPD for the LCS and LCSD was

11%. The batch was accepted based on acceptable RPD for the additional MS/MSD samples and

the acceptable recoveries for both the LCS and MS samples.

The lambda-cyhalothrin MS/MSD RPD exceeded the acceptable limit of 35% for the March 14,

2018 sampling event with an RPD of 36%. Both replicates recovered within the acceptable

control limits, with an MS recovery of 62% and an MSD recovery of 44%. Both LCS recoveries

were also within the acceptable limits and had an RPD of 6.7%. The environmental samples and

field duplicate were all non-detect, indicating they were not affected by the MS sample variability.

The batch was accepted based on acceptable recoveries for the LCS and MS samples.

For each pesticide sample analyzed, a known amount of a surrogate standard is added to monitor

target analyte recovery in each sample. A surrogate is a non-target analyte that is chemically

similar to the target analyte(s) and therefore expected to respond similarly to sample preparation

and analysis.

During the 2018 WY all surrogate recoveries met acceptable limits in 90% of samples for each

analytical method, except for deuterated imidacloprid used as one of two surrogates for NCL ME

321. Fourteen of 21 (66.7%) imidacloprid surrogates recovered within the acceptable limit. All

surrogate recovery failures for imidacloprid were below the lower control limit 50%, with low

recoveries ranging from 29.2% to 41.2%. All flagged surrogate recoveries are associated with


ethalfluralin analyses. All associated environmental results analyzed for ethalfluralin were non-

detects. In addition, each sample with a low surrogate recovery was re-analyzed and confirmed.

Each surrogate failure occurred early during the 2018 WY when ethalfluralin methodology was

still under development; see corrective actions for further discussion of ethalfluralin results.

Furthermore, later samples were also fortified with a deuterated atrazine surrogate in addition to

the imidacloprid surrogate. All atrazine recoveries were within limits. All ethalfluralin data were

accepted and are considered useable.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in water: The QC samples analyzed for TOC include field and

laboratory blanks, field duplicates, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate samples. The 90%

acceptability requirement was met for all TOC QC samples analyzed for the 2018 WY and all data

are useable.

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in water: The QC samples for DOC analyses consist of

laboratory blank, field blank, field duplicate, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate samples.

Measurement quality objectives were met in 100% of DOC QC samples during the 2018 WY; all

data useable.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The QC samples analyzed for TSS analytes include field blanks,

laboratory blanks, field duplicates, laboratory duplicates, and LCS samples. Acceptability was met

in 100% of the field blank, laboratory blank, LCS and LCSD samples. Acceptability was met in 9 of

12 (75%) field duplicate samples.

The acceptable RPD for TSS field duplicates is ≤25%. Field duplicate RPDs exceeded the

acceptable limit in samples collected from the following site and dates: French Camp Slough on

February 20, 2018, Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd on April 10, 2018, and Union Island @ Bonetti

Rd on September 18, 2018. During the February event, the environmental result and field

duplicate results were reported at 23 mg/L and 17 mg/L, respectively. The RPD was 30%. The

environmental result for the April event was 11 mg/L and the field duplicate was 22 mg/L (RPD =

67%). The environmental result for the September event was 35 mg/L and the field duplicate was

62 mg/L (RPD = 56%). In all three cases, all other field duplicate samples were within the

acceptable range, with the exception of turbidity. During the September event the turbidity

environmental sample and field duplicate had an RPD greater than 25% collected from the same

location as the TSS field duplicate indicating variability within the water column for suspended

solids. Variability in TSS samples is likely due to heterogeneity in the water column of murky

samples with high suspended solids loads. In all three batches, all other QC samples met MQOs

for TSS. All TSS are considered acceptable and useable.

Turbidity: Quality control samples analyzed for turbidity include field blanks, laboratory blanks,

field duplicates, laboratory duplicates, and LCS samples. The 90% acceptability requirement was

met for all turbidity samples for the 2018 WY; all data are useable.

Sediment Pesticides: Sediment pesticides are analyzed following two different methods: EPA

8270M (chlorpyrifos and pyrethroids) and EPA 8270 (piperonyl butoxide, PBO). During sediment

monitoring events, additional sediment samples are collected and stored at the chemistry

laboratory until the Coalition receives the sediment toxicity results. If the percent survival of


Hyalella azteca is less than 80% and statistically significant compared to the control, a list of all

samples requiring additional pesticide analysis is sent to the chemistry laboratory. During the

2018 WY, this toxicity trigger was never reached and there were no analyses required for

pesticides in sediment.

Sediment Grain Size and TOC: Samples were collected for sediment grain size and TOC analyses

on March 14, 2018 and September 18, 2018. The associated QC for inorganics in sediments

consists of laboratory blanks (TOC only), certified reference material or CRMs (TOC only), field

duplicates, and laboratory duplicates.

Precision of grain size is measured by the RPD of each of sediment grain size class between

environmental and field duplicate samples. The RPDs often indicate a high level of variability due

to the nature of grain size analysis. With all sediment analyses, sample results may reflect

heterogeneous composition rather than homogenous composition due to 1) sediment settling

within the sample container (affects laboratory duplicate precision) and 2) heterogeneity of the

sediment in the field (affects field duplicate precision). Within the 15 samples analyzed for grain

size in the 2018 WY, grain class RPDs were acceptable in 29 of 36 (80.6%) classes evaluated.

Acceptability was met in 100% of QC samples for sediment TOC, with the exception of field

duplicates. Zero of 2 (0%) field duplicate samples met acceptability criteria of ≤20%. TOC

concentrations in the environmental and field duplicate samples from Bear Creek at North Alpine

Rd collected on March 14, 2018 were reported at 29,000 mg/kg dw and 42,000 mg/kg dw,

respectively, resulting in an RPD of 37%. Concentrations in the environmental and field duplicate

samples from French Camp Slough @ Airport Way collected on September 18, 2018 were

reported at 10,000 mg/kg dw and 6,400 mg/kg dw, respectively, resulting in an RPD of 44%. Due

to the nature of sediment samples, the high RPDs could be due to heterogeneous composition of

TOC in the sediments. The associated grain size samples reflected this observed variability in

multiple size classes for both events; however, for each event the toxicity duplicates were within

limits, indicating the heterogeneity of the sediment composition did not affect toxicity

results. Additionally, TOC results are primarily collected to evaluate sediment organic chemistry

results if a sample is toxic. There were no toxic sediment samples in the 2018 WY and therefore

no sediment organic chemistry was required. The sediment TOC data were accepted and are

useable.

Toxicity

The Coalition analyzes for water column toxicity on three test species (Ceriodaphnia dubia,

Selenastrum capricornutum, and Pimephales promelas) and sediment toxicity to Hyalella azteca.

Quality control for toxicity testing is based on the performance of the control tests (CNEG) and

RPDs calculated from the environmental and field duplicate samples. Reference tests also occur

at the time of toxicity testing to assess the overall health of the organisms and predictability of

responses to exposure.

Water Column Toxicity: During the 2018 WY, field duplicate samples were collected from sites

scheduled for toxicity monitoring for one or more of the test species. The RPDs for all field

duplicate samples were less than 25% (Table 25). Control tests for each test species occur


concurrently with toxicity tests conducted on Coalition samples. All control tests met the

acceptability criteria for each of the test species (Table 33).

Sediment Toxicity: Sediment samples were collected to test for toxicity on March 14 and

September 18, 2018. Field duplicate samples were collected during these monitoring events and

all RPDs were below the acceptable limit (Table 25). All control tests met the 80% survival

criterion (Table 33).

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

Corrective actions define the actions taken to stop the reoccurrence of non-conformities. In some

cases, the Coalition addresses corrective action options with laboratories to improve QC

measures that consistently demonstrate failure to meet MQOs.

The Coalition instituted several corrective actions to avoid field QC sample collection failures that

resulted in a failure to meet the annual field QC frequency requirements, as was the case with

chloropicrin samples for the 2018 WY (See Field and Transport Completeness above).

Chloropicrin field QC samples were originally scheduled for two different events during the 2018

WY; however, both sites were dry and as a result chloropicrin failed to meet the 5% frequency

requirement for field blanks and field duplicates.

Though completeness assessments are made intermittently throughout the year, the Coalition has

now scheduled these assessments to be made quarterly. Furthermore, additional communication

with sampling crews after each event regarding scheduled samples that were not collected has

been instituted. The quarterly completeness assessments have been scheduled to ensure that

specific analytes that are scheduled for limited events can be assessed for field QC completeness

real-time and rescheduled for later sampling events as necessary.

During the 2018 WY the Coalition contacted the laboratory regarding the QC results for

ethalfluralin; the 2018 WY was the first year the Coalition collected samples for ethalfluralin

analysis.

Ethalfluralin is currently analyzed under the internal method developed and performed by NCL,

labeled NCL ME 321. This method is an HPLC/MS/MS method based on the pesticide screen

developed by the USGS. This is the only commercially available analytical method that the

Coalition is aware of to be able to analyze for ethalfluralin.

Though NCL has experience adapting the USGS pesticide screen for their laboratory, many of the

new analytes request by the Coalition per the PEP required method development to bring analyte

responses into a reliable range. The Coalition has been working with NCL to refine the analysis;

however, there has been difficulty achieving laboratory QC recoveries within acceptable criteria

for ethalfluralin. The method has improved since ethalfluralin analysis was first requested and the

Coalition will continue to monitor quality control results and work with NCL to refine the analysis

procedures to ensure that QC can meet the QAPP MQOs. If the method does not improve, the

Coalition will discuss options with Regional Water Board staff for next steps.


Table 19. SJCDWQC field and transport and analytical completeness: environmental sample counts and percentages. Samples collected for the 2018 WY. The table counts environmental samples only; field duplicates are not included. Each constituent is sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet completeness requirement.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES

SCHEDULED

DRY SITES/

TOO

SHALLOW

ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES

COLLECTED

FIELD AND

TRANSPORT

COMPLETENESS

(%)

TOTAL

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

ANALYTICAL

COMPLETENESS

(%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity 72 4 68 100.0 68 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic 16 0 16 100.0 16 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium 8 0 8 100.0 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper 8 1 7 100.0 7 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead 10 0 10 100.0 10 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel 8 0 8 100.0 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum 8 0 8 100.0 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium 8 0 8 100.0 8 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N 75 4 71 100.0 71 100.0

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate 14 2 12 100.0 12 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat 14 2 12 100.0 12 100.0

EPA 630 Water Ziram 5 0 5 100.0 5 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil 14 1 13 100.0 13 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione 1 0 1 100.0 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen 13 3 10 100.0 10 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine 1 0 1 100.0 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos 51 0 51 100.0 51 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon 23 0 23 100.0 23 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate 8 0 8 100.0 8 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin 15 2 13 100.0 13 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine 5 1 4 100.0 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin 7 0 7 100.0 7 100.0

EPA 8151A Water Dichlorophenoxyacetic

Acid, 2,4- 6 0 6 100.0 6 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Ceriodaphnia dubia 60 3 57 100.0 57 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Pimephales promelas 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-013 Water Selenastrum

capricornutum 90 4 86 100.0 86 100.0

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin 7 2 5 100.0 5 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin 19 0 19 100.0 19 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total 9 0 9 100.0 9 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- 20 0 20 100.0 20 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total 15 0 15 100.0 15 100.0


METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES

SCHEDULED

DRY SITES/

TOO

SHALLOW

ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES

COLLECTED

FIELD AND

TRANSPORT

COMPLETENESS

(%)

TOTAL

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

ANALYTICAL

COMPLETENESS

(%)

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate,

Total 13 0 13 100.0 13 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin 13 0 13 100.0 13 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total 18 0 18 100.0 18 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron 13 1 12 100.0 12 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid 12 0 12 100.0 12 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl 3 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin 4 0 4 100.0 4 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin 5 0 5 100.0 5 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid 2 0 2 100.0 2 100.0

NCL ME 340/ NCL ME 342

Water Clothianidin 6 0 6 100.0 6 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil 1 0 1 100.0 1 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin 8 2 6 100.0 6 100.0


Water Pyraclostrobin 6 0 6 100.0 6 100.0

SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 18 1 17 100.0 17 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids 72 4 68 100.0 68 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N 77 6 71 100.0 71 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P 72 4 68 100.0 68 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon 41 0 41 100.0 41 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon 72 4 68 100.0 68 100.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli 72 4 68 100.0 68 100.0

EPA 600/R-99-064 Sediment Hyalella azteca 14 1 13 100.0 13 100.0

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon 14 1 13 100.0 13 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Clay 14 1 13 100.0 13 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Granule 14 1 13 100.0 13 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Pebble 53 1 52 100.0 52 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Sand 66 1 65 100.0 65 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Silt 14 1 13 100.0 13 100.0

Total 1345 62 1283 100.0 1283 100.0


Table 20. SJCDWQC field and transport completeness: field parameter counts and percentages. Samples collected for the 2018 WY, sorted by analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet 90% completeness requirement.

METHOD ANALYTE SAMPLES

SCHEDULED1

DRY

SITES/TOO

SHALLOW

MEASUREMENTS

TAKEN COMPLETENESS (%)

USGS R2Cross streamflow Discharge, cfs 141 7 92 70.2

SM 4500-O Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L 152 8 144 100.0

EPA 150.1 pH 152 8 144 100.0

EPA 120.1 Specific Conductivity, µS/cm 152 8 144 100.0

SM 2550 Temperature, ⁰C 152 8 144 100.0

Total 749 39 668 94.4 1Discharge is not measured at sites scheduled for toxicity monitoring only and is excluded in the count for samples scheduled.

Table 21. SJCDWQC field and transport and analytical completeness: field QC counts and percentages. Samples collected during the 2018 WY. Sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows indicate that the analyte that did not meet the completeness requirement.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE ENVIRONMENTA

L SAMPLE

COUNTS

FD

SAMPLE

COUNTS

FB SAMPLE

COUNTS

TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTA

L & FIELD QC

SAMPLES

% FD

SAMPLES % FB

SAMPLES

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity 68 12 12 92 13.0 13.0

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic 16 4 4 24 16.7 16.7

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium 8 4 4 16 25.0 25.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper 7 1 1 9 11.1 11.1

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead 10 4 4 18 22.2 22.2

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel 8 4 4 16 25.0 25.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum 8 4 4 16 25.0 25.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium 8 4 4 16 25.0 25.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N 71 12 12 95 12.6 12.6

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate 12 3 3 18 16.7 16.7

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat 12 3 3 18 16.7 16.7

EPA 630 Water Ziram 5 1 1 7 14.3 14.3

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil 13 3 3 19 15.8 15.8

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I 3 1 1 5 20.0 20.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II 3 1 1 5 20.0 20.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione 1 1 1 3 33.3 33.3

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen 10 4 4 18 22.2 22.2

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine 1 1 1 3 33.3 33.3

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos 51 4 4 59 6.8 6.8

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon 23 2 2 27 7.4 7.4

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate 8 2 2 12 16.7 16.7

EPA 8141A Water Malathion 3 1 1 5 20.0 20.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin 13 5 5 23 21.7 21.7

EPA 8141A Water Simazine 4 1 1 6 16.7 16.7

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin 7 2 2 11 18.2 18.2


Acid, 2,4- 6 5 5 16 31.3 31.3

EPA 821/R-02-012

Water Ceriodaphnia dubia 57 12 NA 69 17.4 NA

EPA 821/R-02-012

Water Pimephales promelas 3 2 NA 5 40.0 NA

EPA 821/R-02-013

Water Selenastrum

capricornutum 86 11 NA 97 11.3 NA


METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE ENVIRONMENTA

L SAMPLE

COUNTS

FD

SAMPLE

COUNTS

FB SAMPLE

COUNTS

TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTA

L & FIELD QC

SAMPLES

% FD

SAMPLES % FB

SAMPLES

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin 5 0 0 5 0 0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin 19 3 3 25 12.0 12.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total 9 1 1 11 9.1 9.1

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total

lambda- 20 5 5 30 16.7 16.7

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total 15 4 4 23 17.4 17.4

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerat

e, Total 13 3 3 19 15.8 15.8

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin 13 2 2 17 11.8 11.8

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total 18 4 4 26 15.4 15.4

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl 3 1 1 5 20.0 20.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron 12 3 3 18 16.7 16.7

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid 12 2 2 16 12.5 12.5

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb 3 1 1 5 20.0 20.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl 3 2 2 7 28.6 28.6

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin 4 3 3 10 30.0 30.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin 5 2 2 9 22.2 22.2

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid 2 2 2 6 33.3 33.3


Water Clothianidin 6 1 1 8 12.5 12.5

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil 1 1 1 3 33.3 33.3

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin 6 4 4 14 28.6 28.6


Water Pyraclostrobin 6 3 3 12 25.0 25.0

SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 17 5 5 27 18.5 18.5

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids 68 12 12 92 13.0 13.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N 71 12 12 95 12.6 12.6

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P 68 12 12 92 13.0 13.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon 41 8 8 57 14.0 14.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon 68 12 12 92 13.0 13.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli 68 12 12 92 13.0 13.0

EPA 600/R-99-064

Sediment Hyalella azteca 13 2 NA 15 13.3 NA

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon 13 2 NA 15 13.3 NA

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Clay 13 2 NA 15 13.3 NA

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Granule 13 2 NA 15 13.3 NA

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Pebble 52 8 NA 60 13.3 NA

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Sand 65 10 NA 75 13.3 NA

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Silt 13 2 NA 15 13.3 NA

Total 1283 262 209 1745 14.9 16.3

NA-Not Applicable; analysis was not conducted, or the QC is not required for the constituent listed. FD – Field Duplicate FB - Field Blank


Table 22. SJCDWQC summary of holding time evaluations for environmental, field blank, equipment blank, field duplicate and matrix spike samples. Samples collected during the 2018 WY sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples. Matrix spike duplicates are not included in the counts.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE HOLD TIME TOTAL

SAMPLE

S

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

WITHIN

HOLD TIME

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity 48 hours 92 92 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic 180 days 28 28 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium 180 days 22 22 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper 180 days 15 15 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead 180 days 26 26 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel 180 days 22 22 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum 180 days 20 20 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium 180 days 20 20 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N 28 days 108 108 100.0

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate Freeze within 2 weeks, analyze within 6

months or analyze within 2 weeks if not frozen 21 21 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat Extract within 7 days, analyze within 21 days 21 21 100.0

EPA 630 Water Ziram 7 days 10 10 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 24 24 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 7 7 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 7 7 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 4 4 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 23 23 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 71 71 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 34 34 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 17 9 52.9

EPA 8141A Water Malathion Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 7 7 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 29 29 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 9 7 77.8

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 15 15 100.0

EPA 8151A Water Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid,

2,4- Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 22 22 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Ceriodaphnia dubia 36 hours 69 69 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Pimephales promelas 36 hours 5 5 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-013 Water Selenastrum capricornutum 36 hours 97 97 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 34 34 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 18 18 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 38 38 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 32 32 100.0


Total Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 25 25 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 23 23 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 35 35 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 8 8 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 23 23 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 21 21 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 8 8 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 10 10 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 14 14 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 13 13 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 8 8 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Clothianidin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 7 7 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 19 19 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Pyraclostrobin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 12 12 100.0


METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE HOLD TIME TOTAL

SAMPLE

S

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

WITHIN

HOLD TIME

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

NCL ME 342 Water Clothianidin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 5 5 100.0

NCL ME 342 Water Pyraclostrobin Extract within 7 days, analyze within 40 days 5 5 100.0

SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 180 days 37 37 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids 7 days 92 92 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N 28 days 110 110 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P 48 hours 104 104 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon 28 days 71 71 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon 28 days 112 112 100.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli 24 hours 92 92 100.0

EPA 600/R-99-064 Sediment Hyalella azteca 14 days 15 15 100.0

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon 28 days 15 15 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Clay 1 year 15 15 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Granule 1 year 15 15 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Pebble 1 year 60 60 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Sand 1 year 75 75 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Silt 1 year 15 15 100.0

Total 2047 2037 99.5

Table 23. SJCDWQC summary of field blank (FB) quality control sample evaluations. Samples collected during the 2018 WY sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE1 FB DATA ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA TOTAL FB

SAMPLES

FB SAMPLES

WITHIN

ACCEPTABILITY

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as

N < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

EPA 630 Water Ziram < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 5 5 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 8151A Water Dichlorophenoxyac

etic Acid, 2,4- < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 5 5 100.0


METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE1 FB DATA ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA TOTAL FB

SAMPLES

FB SAMPLES

WITHIN

ACCEPTABILITY

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Bifenthrin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Cyfluthrin, Total < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Cyhalothrin, Total

lambda- < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 5 5 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Cypermethrin,

Total < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Esfenvalerate/

Fenvalerate, Total < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Fenpropathrin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI

Water Permethrin, Total < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 3 3 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Pyraclostrobin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 342 Water Clothianidin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

NCL ME 342 Water Pyraclostrobin < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0

SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 5 5 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended

Solids < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as

P < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic

Carbon < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 8 8 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic

Carbon < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 12 12 100.0

Total 209 209 100.0 1Field blanks (FB) are not analyzed for sediment grain size, sediment pesticides, sediment TOC, and water column and sediment toxicity. These analytes and are not included in this table.

Table 24. SJCDWQC summary of equipment blank (EB) quality control sample evaluations. Samples collected during the 2018 WY sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet 90% acceptability requirement.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE EB DATA ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA TOTAL EB

SAMPLES

EB WITHIN

ACCEPTABILIT

Y

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 1 1 100.0


METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE EB DATA ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA TOTAL EB

SAMPLES

EB WITHIN

ACCEPTABILIT

Y

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel < RL or 1/5 environmental sample 2 2 100.0

Total 7 7 100.0

Table 25. SJCDWQC summary of field duplicate quality control sample evaluations. Samples collected during the 2018 WY sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet 90% acceptability requirement.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE DUPLICATE DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL FIELD

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES

FIELD DUPLICATE

SAMPLES WITHIN

LIMIT

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity RPD ≤ 25 12 11 91.7

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead RPD ≤ 25 4 2 50.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium RPD ≤ 25 4 2 50.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N RPD ≤ 25 12 12 100.0

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 630 Water Ziram RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin RPD ≤ 25 5 5 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0


Acid, 2,4- RPD ≤ 25 5 5 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Ceriodaphnia dubia RPD ≤ 25 12 12 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Pimephales promelas RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0


capricornutum RPD ≤ 25 11 11 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- RPD ≤ 25 5 5 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0


Total RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron RPD ≤ 25 3 2 66.7


METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE DUPLICATE DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL FIELD

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES

FIELD DUPLICATE

SAMPLES WITHIN

LIMIT

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin RPD ≤ 25 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Pyraclostrobin RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 342 Water Clothianidin RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0


SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 RPD ≤ 25 5 5 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids RPD ≤ 25 12 9 75.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N RPD ≤ 25 12 9 75.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P RPD ≤ 25 12 12 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon RPD ≤ 25 8 8 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon RPD ≤ 25 12 12 100.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli Rlog ≤ 1.3 12 12 100.0

EPA 600/R-99-064 Sediment Hyalella azteca RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon RPD ≤ 20 2 0 0.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Clay RPD ≤ 20 2 2 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Granule RPD ≤ 20 2 1 50.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Pebble RPD ≤ 20 8 8 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Sand RPD ≤ 20 10 4 40.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Silt RPD ≤ 20 2 2 100.0

Total 262 241 92.0

Table 26. SJCDWQC summary of laboratory blank (LB) quality control sample evaluations. Samples collected during the 2018 WY, sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE1

LB DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL LB

SAMPLES LB SAMPLES

WITHIN LIMITS ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity < RL 12 12 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper < RL 5 5 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead < RL 6 6 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N < RL 12 12 100.0

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 630 Water Ziram < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I < RL 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II < RL 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione < RL 1 1 100.0



LB DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL LB

SAMPLES LB SAMPLES


MET (%)

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine < RL 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos < RL 10 10 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon < RL 7 7 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion < RL 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin < RL 6 6 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin < RL 4 4 100.0


Acid, 2,4- < RL 6 6 100.0

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin < RL 5 5 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total < RL 6 6 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- < RL 8 8 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total < RL 6 6 100.0


Total < RL 6 6 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin < RL 6 6 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total < RL 9 9 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid < RL 4 4 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl < RL 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin < RL 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin < RL 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid < RL 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Clothianidin < RL 3 3 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil < RL 1 1 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin < RL 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Pyraclostrobin < RL 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 342 Water Clothianidin < RL 1 1 100.0

NCL ME 342 Water Pyraclostrobin < RL 1 1 100.0

SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 < RL 9 9 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids < RL 12 12 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20 Water Ammonia as N < RL 15 15 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P < RL 12 12 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon < RL 14 14 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon < RL 18 18 100.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli < RL 12 12 100.0

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon < MDL or <30%

of lowest sample

2 2 100.0

Total 304 304 100.0 1Laboratory blanks (LB) are not analyzed for sediment grain size, sediment toxicity, and water column toxicity. These analytes are not included in table.


Table 27. SJCDWQC summary of laboratory control spike (LCS) quality control sample evaluations. Laboratory control spikes and laboratory control spike duplicates analyzed in batches with samples collected within the 2018 WY, sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.

METHOD1 MATRIX ANALYTE2 LCS DATA

ACCEPTABILI

TY CRITERIA

TOTAL LCS

SAMPLES LCS SAMPLES


MET (%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity PR 90-110 12 12 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic PR 80-120 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium PR 80-120 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper PR 80-120 5 5 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead PR 80-120 6 6 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel PR 80-120 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum PR 80-120 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium PR 80-120 4 4 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N PR 90-110 12 12 100.0

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate PR 80-118 6 6 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat PR 70-130 6 5 83.3

EPA 630 Water Ziram PR 88-113 6 6 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil PR 41-137 4 4 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I PR 50-131 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II PR 55-128 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione PR 40-152 1 1 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen PR 44-138 5 5 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine PR 39-156 1 1 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos PR 40-140 13 13 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon PR 45-130 9 9 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate PR 40-170 4 3 75.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion PR 30-137 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin PR 32-144 10 10 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine PR 21-179 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin PR 40-148 5 5 100.0

EPA 8151A Water Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4- PR 52-143 7 7 100.0

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin PR 86-124 6 6 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin PR 50-130 10 10 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total PR 50-130 12 12 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- PR 40-130 16 16 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total PR 55-130 12 12 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total PR 40-140 12 12 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin PR 45-150 12 12 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total PR 35-150 18 18 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl PR 44-133 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron PR 52-136 5 5 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid PR 40-130 4 4 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb PR 35-142 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl PR 23-152 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin PR 23-144 4 3 75.0

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin PR 50-150 8 7 87.5

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid PR 50-150 4 4 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Clothianidin PR 50-150 6 6 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil PR 50-150 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin PR 50-150 8 8 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Pyraclostrobin PR 50-150 8 8 100.0


METHOD1 MATRIX ANALYTE2 LCS DATA

ACCEPTABILI

TY CRITERIA

TOTAL LCS

SAMPLES LCS SAMPLES


MET (%)



SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 PR 80-120 9 9 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids PR 80-120 12 12 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20 Water Ammonia as N PR 90-110 30 30 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P PR 90-110 12 12 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon PR 80-120 27 27 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon PR 80-120 35 35 100.0

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon PR 75-125 2 2 100.0

Total 429 423 98.6 1Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) are used as the LCS or LCSD for TOC following the Walkley-Black method. 2Laboratory control spikes are not run for E. coli, grain size and water column and sediment toxicity analyses and are not included in table.

Table 28. SJCDWQC summary of lab control spike duplicate (LCSD) quality control sample evaluations. Laboratory control spikes duplicates analyzed in batches with samples collected during the 2018 WY sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.


DUPLICATE DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

LCSD

SAMPLES

LCSD

SAMPLES

WITHIN LIMITS

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)











Acid, 2,4- RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin RPD ≤ 30 3 3 100.0





EPA 8270M_NCI Water Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

, Total RPD ≤ 35 6 6 100.0












SM 4500-NH3 C v20 Water Ammonia as N RPD ≤ 20 15 15 100.0




DUPLICATE DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

LCSD

SAMPLES

LCSD

SAMPLES

WITHIN LIMITS

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)


Total 137 136 99.3 1 Laboratory control spike duplicates are not run for all analytes. Analytes that do not have laboratory control spike duplicates are not included in table.

Table 29. SJCDWQC summary of matrix spike (MS) quality control sample evaluations. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates collected for the 2018 WY. Non-project matrix spikes are included for batch Quality Assurance completeness purposes. Evaluations are sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.


MS DATA

ACCEPTABILIT

Y CRITERIA

TOTAL MS

SAMPLES MS SAMPLES


MET (%)

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic PR 80-120 8 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium PR 80-120 8 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper PR 80-120 10 10 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead PR 80-120 12 12 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel PR 80-120 8 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum PR 80-120 8 8 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium PR 80-120 8 8 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N PR 90-110 26 20 76.9

EPA 547M Water Glyphosate PR 80-118 6 6 100.0

EPA 549.2M Water Paraquat PR 70-130 6 0 0.0

EPA 630 Water Ziram PR 88-113 6 6 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil PR 41-137 10 8 80.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I PR 50-131 4 4 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II PR 55-128 4 4 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione PR 40-152 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Oxyfluorfen PR 44-138 10 10 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Atrazine PR 39-156 2 2 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Chlorpyrifos PR 40-140 24 24 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Diazinon PR 45-130 14 14 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate PR 40-170 10 10 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion PR 30-137 4 4 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Pendimethalin PR 32-144 12 12 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Simazine PR 21-179 6 6 100.0

EPA 8141A Water Trifluralin PR 40-148 8 7 87.5


2,4- PR 52-143 12 11 91.7

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin PR 86-124 6 6 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Bifenthrin PR 15-130 18 18 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyfluthrin, Total PR 35-130 14 14 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- PR 15-130 16 16 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Cypermethrin, Total PR 30-130 18 18 100.0


Total PR 40-140 12 12 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Fenpropathrin PR 10-155 12 12 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Permethrin, Total PR 45-130 18 18 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl PR 44-133 6 6 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Diuron PR 52-136 10 9 90.0

EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid PR 40-130 10 10 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb PR 35-142 6 6 100.0



MS DATA

ACCEPTABILIT

Y CRITERIA

TOTAL MS

SAMPLES MS SAMPLES


MET (%)

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl PR 23-152 6 6 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin PR 23-144 8 7 87.5

NCL ME 321 Water Ethalfluralin PR 50-150 8 4 50.0

NCL ME 340 Water Acetamiprid PR 50-150 4 4 100.0


NCL ME 340 Water Cyprodinil PR 50-150 2 2 100.0

NCL ME 340 Water Flumioxazin PR 50-150 10 10 100.0




SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 PR 80-120 20 20 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N PR 70-130 30 30 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P PR 90-110 24 22 91.7

SM 5310 B Water Dissolved Organic Carbon PR 80-120 28 28 100.0

SM 5310 B Water Total Organic Carbon PR 80-120 40 40 100.0

Total 572 548 95.8 1Matrix spikes are not analyzed for E. coli, sediment grain size, turbidity, TSS, and water column and sediment toxicity. These analytes and are

not included in table.

Table 30. SJCDWQC summary of matrix spike duplicate (MSD) quality control sample evaluations. Matrix spike duplicates collected for the 2018 WY. Non-project matrix spikes are included for batch Quality Assurance completeness purposes. Evaluations are sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE

DUPLICATE

DATA

ACCEPTABILIT

Y CRITERIA

TOTAL MSD

SAMPLES MSD SAMPLES


MET (%)

EPA 200.8 Water Arsenic RPD ≤ 20 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Cadmium RPD ≤ 20 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Copper RPD ≤ 20 5 5 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Lead RPD ≤ 20 6 6 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Dissolved Nickel RPD ≤ 20 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Molybdenum RPD ≤ 20 4 4 100.0

EPA 200.8 Water Selenium RPD ≤ 20 4 4 100.0

EPA 353.2 Water Nitrate + Nitrite as N RPD ≤ 25 13 13 100.0




EPA 8081A Water Chlorothalonil RPD ≤ 25 5 5 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan I RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Endosulfan II RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Iprodione RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0


EPA 8141A Water Atrazine RPD ≤ 25 1 1 100.0



EPA 8141A Water Dimethoate RPD ≤ 25 5 4 80.0

EPA 8141A Water Malathion RPD ≤ 25 2 2 100.0




DUPLICATE

DATA

ACCEPTABILIT

Y CRITERIA

TOTAL MSD

SAMPLES MSD SAMPLES


MET (%)




2,4- RPD ≤ 25 6 5 83.3

EPA 8260BM Water Chloropicrin RPD ≤ 30 3 3 100.0






Total RPD ≤ 35 6 6 100.0



EPA 8321A Water Carbaryl RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0


EPA 8321A Water Imidacloprid RPD ≤ 25 5 5 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methiocarb RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Methomyl RPD ≤ 25 3 3 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Oryzalin RPD ≤ 25 4 3 75.0









SM 2340 C Water Hardness as CaCO3 RPD ≤ 20 10 10 100.0

SM 4500-NH3 C v20

Water Ammonia as N RPD ≤ 20 15 15 100.0

SM 4500-P E Water OrthoPhosphate as P RPD ≤ 20 12 12 100.0



Total 286 280 97.9 1Matrix spikes are not analyzed for E. coli, sediment grain size, turbidity, TSS, and water column and sediment toxicity. These analytes and are

not included in table.

Table 31. SJCDWQC summary of laboratory duplicate quality control sample evaluations. Lab duplicates were analyzed in batches with samples collected for the 2018 WY. Non-project samples are included for batch Quality Assurance completeness purposes. Evaluations sorted by matrix, method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.


DUPLICATE

DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

LABORATORY

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES

LABORATORY

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES WITHIN

LIMIT

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

EPA 180.1 Water Turbidity RPD ≤ 20 12 12 100.0

SM 2540 D Water Total Suspended Solids RPD ≤ 20 12 12 100.0

SM 9223 B Water E. coli Rlog ≤ 1.3 12 12 100.0

EPA 9060 Sediment Total Organic Carbon RPD ≤ 20 4 4 100.0



DUPLICATE

DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

LABORATORY

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES

LABORATORY

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES WITHIN

LIMIT

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Clay RPD ≤ 20 3 3 100.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Granule RPD ≤ 20 3 0 0.0

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Pebble RPD ≤ 20 12 10 83.3

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Sand RPD ≤ 20 15 13 86.7

Plumb, 1981, GS Sediment Silt RPD ≤ 20 3 3 100.0

Total 76 69 90.8 1 Laboratory duplicates that are performed on environmental sample volume are not run for all analytes. Analytes that do not have these duplicates are not included in table.

Table 32. SJCDWQC summary of surrogate recovery quality control sample evaluations. Surrogates were run with samples collected and Laboratory Quality Assurance (LABQA) samples analyzed for the 2018WY for all organics except paraquat and glyphosate. Evaluations are sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.

METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE SURROGATE DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

SURROGATE

SAMPLES

SURROGATES

WITHIN LIMITS ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

EPA 8081A Water PCB 209 PR 16-146 77 77 100.0

EPA 8081A Water Tetrachloro-m-xylene PR 15-98 77 73 90.2

EPA 8141A Water Tributylphosphate PR 60-150 178 176 98.9

EPA 8141A Water Triphenyl Phosphate PR 56-129 178 170 95.5

EPA 8151A Water Dichlorophenylacetic

Acid, 2,4- PR 33-154 41 41 100.0

EPA 8260BM Water Toluene-d8 PR 76-128 20 20 100.0

EPA 8270C SIM Water Esfenvalerate-d6, Total PR 30-150 8 8 100.0

EPA 8270M_NCI Water Esfenvalerate-d6, Total PR 43-110 123 123 100.0

EPA 8321A Water Tributylphosphate PR 36-140 108 103 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Atrazine-d5 PR 50-150 8 8 100.0

NCL ME 321 Water Imidacloprid-d4 PR 50-150 21 14 66.7


NCL ME 340 Water Imidacloprid-d4 PR 50-150 65 65 100.0


Total 909 885 97.4

Table 33. SJCDWQC summary of toxicity lab control sample evaluations. Samples collected for the 2018 WY; sorted by method and species. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet MQOs in ≥90% of the samples.

METHOD MATRIX TEST SPECIES TEST ACCEPTABILITY TOTAL

CONTROL

TESTS

CONTROL

TESTS WITHIN

LIMIT

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival ≥ 90% 12 12 100.0

EPA 821/R-02-012 Water Pimephales promelas Survival ≥ 80% 3 3 100.0


capricornutum Growth >200,000 cells/mL

and variability <20% 12 12 100.0

EPA 600/R-99-064 Sediment Hyalella azteca Survival ≥ 80% 2 2 100.0

Total 29 29 100.0


SURFACE WATER MONITORING RESULTS

The sections below include a discussion of surface water monitoring exceedance data for each site

subwatershed by zone to address the second programmatic question in the WDR, “Are irrigated

agricultural operations causing or contributing to identified water quality problems? If so, what

are the specific factors or practices causing or contributing to the identified problems?”. Each

discussion includes an assessment of the agricultural pesticide applications that are potential

sources of the exceedances.

Table 34 includes dates where samples were unable to be collected due to dry/non-contiguous

waterbodies and/or lack of access to the sample location during the 2018 WY. A list of WQTLs

used to evaluate monitoring results is included in Table 35. All exceedances that occurred during

the 2018 WY are included in Tables 36 through 45 and are discussed by zone in the sections

below. Tallies of exceedances that occurred during the 2018 WY are listed by site and zone in

Attachment B. The tallies in Attachment B represent 1) the number of exceedances per

constituent and 2) the percent of exceedances relative to the number of samples collected

(including dry sites). If an exceedance occurred in both the environmental and associated field

duplicate sample, only the environmental sample result was counted. The Coalition conducts

monitoring during periods were high total suspended solids (High TSS) are expected in the

waterways in order to capture constituents of concern bound to sediment. High TSS monitoring

events occur during two storm and two irrigation events annually.

The California Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) treated various Delta waterways with

herbicides to control water hyacinth and spongeplant from March through November 2018. The

DBW primarily used glyphosate, imazamox, fluridone, 2, 4-D, which are all herbicides registered

for aquatic use with California Environmental Protection Agency (CAEPA) and the Department of

Pesticide Regulation (DPR). These herbicide applications may have contributed to algae toxicity

which occurred in samples collected from sites in the legal Delta (Zones 3, 4, and 7).

Table 34. Sample dates for sites not sampled during the 2018 WY. After April 2017, the Coalition no longer collected samples from non-contiguous waterbodies.

STATION NAME SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE COMMENTS

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd 11/16/2017 Non-contiguous

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd 12/12/2017 Non-contiguous

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 03/14/2018 Non-contiguous

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 03/14/2018 Non-contiguous

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd 09/18/2018 No Sediment Samples Collected*

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 02/20/2018 Non-contiguous

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave 11/16/2017 Non-contiguous

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave 12/12/2017 Non-contiguous

*The waterbody was too deep to collect sediment.


Table 35. Water Quality Trigger Limits.

CONSTITUENT WATER QUALITY

TRIGGER LIMIT

(WQTL)

STANDARD

TYPE BENEFICIAL USE (BU) WITH

MOST PROTECTIVE LIMIT REFERENCE FOR THE TRIGGER LIMIT

CATEGORY (SEE

FOOTNOTES)

pH 6.5 - 8.5 units Numeric Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers Basin Plan (Page III.6.00) 1

Electrical Conductivity (maximum)

700 µmhos/cm Narrative Agricultural Supply Water Quality for Agriculture (Ayers & Westcott) 3

Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)

7 mg/L

Numeric

Cold Freshwater Habitat, Spawning

Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers Basin Plan. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin.

1

5 mg/L Warm Freshwater Habitat Basin Plan Objective, Page III-5.00: for waters designated WARM (aquatic life). Tulare Lake Basin

Plan

Turbidity variable Numeric Municipal and Domestic

Supply Basin Plan Objective - increase varies based on natural turbidity 1

Total Suspended Solids NA

Temperature variable Numeric Basin Plan Objective

(see objectives for COLD, WARM, and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries) 1

E. coli 235 MPN/100 ml Narrative Water Contact Recreation EPA ambient water quality criteria, single-sample maximum 3

TOC NA

Pesticides – Carbamates

Aldicarb 3 µg/L Numeric Municipal and Domestic

Supply Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) Primary MCL (MUN, human health) 1

Carbaryl 2.53 µg/L Narrative Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection -

Continuous Concentration, 4-Day Average 3

Carbofuran ND Numeric Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - Basin Plan Prohibition 2

Methiocarb 0.5 µg/L Narrative Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective:

Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 3

Methomyl 0.52 µg/L Narrative Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection -

Continuous Concentration, 4-Day Average (California Department of Fish and Game) (aquatic life) 3

Oxamyl 50 µg/L Numeric Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective: Drinking Water Standards - MCLS.

California Dept of Health Services. Primary MCL 3

Pesticides - Organophosphates

Azinphos methyl 0.01 µg/L Narrative Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective:

USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria - instantaneous maximum 3

Chlorpyrifos 0.015 µg/L Numeric Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers Basin Plan: Page III-6.01; San Joaquin River &

Delta, Sacramento & Feather Rivers; more stringent 4-day average. 1

Diazinon 0.1 µg/L Numeric Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan: San Joaquin River & Delta numeric standard. Sacramento &

Feather Rivers numeric standard 1

Dichlorvos 0.085 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: Drinking Water Health Advisories or Suggested No-Adverse-Response Levels for non-cancer health effects. One-in-a-Million Incremental Cancer Risk Estimates for Drinking Water. Cal/EPA Cancer Potency Factor as a drinking water level

3

Dimethoate 1.0 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: Notification Level – DHS (MUN, human

health). California Notification Levels. (Department of Health Services) 3

Demeton-s NA



TRIGGER LIMIT

(WQTL)

STANDARD



CATEGORY (SEE

FOOTNOTES)

Disulfoton 0.05 µg/L Narrative Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective:

USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria - Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection - instantaneous maximum

3

Malathion ND Numeric Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - Basin Plan Prohibition 2

Methamidophos 0.35 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply Basin Plan Toxicity Objective, Drinking Water Health Advisories or Suggested No-Adverse-Response

Levels for non-cancer health effects. USEPA IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) as a drinking water level. 3

Methidathion 0.7 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective:

USEPA IRIS Reference Dose (MUN, human health) 3

Parathion, Methyl ND Numeric Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - Basin Plan Prohibition 2

Phorate 0.7 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: Drinking Water Health Advisories or Suggested No-Adverse-Response Levels for non-cancer health effects. USEPA IRIS Reference Dose

(RfD) as a drinking water level. 3

Phosmet 140 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: Drinking Water Health Advisories or Suggested No-Adverse-Response Levels for non-cancer health effects.

USEPA IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) as a drinking water level. 3

Pesticides - Herbicides

Atrazine 1.0 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective:

California Primary MCL 1

Cyanazine 1.0 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic


USEPA Health Advisory (human health) 3

Diuron 2 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: One-in-a-Million Incremental Cancer Risk Estimates for Drinking Water. USEPA Health Advisory. Likely to be carcinogenic to humans (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment). 3

Glyphosate 700 µg/L Numeric Municipal and Domestic


California Primary MCL (MUN, human health) 1

Linuron 1.4 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic


USEPA IRIS Reference Dose as a drinking water level 3

Molinate ND Numeric Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - Basin Plan Discharge Prohibition 2

Paraquat 3.2 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic


USEPA IRIS Reference Dose as a drinking water level 3

Simazine 4.0 µg/L Numeric Municipal and Domestic



Thiobencarb ND Numeric Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - Basin Plan Discharge Prohibition 2

Trifluralin 5 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: USEPA IRIS Cancer Risk Level.

One-in-a-Million Incremental Cancer Risk Estimates for Drinking Water 3

Metals (c)

Arsenic 10 µg/L Narrative Municipal and Domestic


USEPA Primary MCL (MUN, human health) 1

Boron 700 µg/L Narrative Agricultural Supply Water Quality for Agriculture (Ayers & Westcot) 3

Cadmium For aquatic life;

variable (see cadmium worksheet).

Numeric Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective: CTR Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection - Continuous Concentration,

4-Day Average - Varies with water hardness 1



TRIGGER LIMIT

(WQTL)

STANDARD



CATEGORY (SEE

FOOTNOTES)

5 µg/L Numeric Municipal and Domestic



Copper

For aquatic life; variable (see copper

worksheet). Numeric Freshwater Habitat

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective: CTR Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection - Continuous Concentration,

4-Day Average - Varies with water hardness/ 1

1,300 µg/L Numeric Municipal and Domestic



Lead

For aquatic life; variable (see lead


CTR Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection - Continuous Concentration, 4-Day Average - varies with water hardness

1




Molybdenum

15 µg/L

Numeric Municipal and Domestic

Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - San Joaquin River, Mouth of the Merced River to Vernalis

1 50 µg/L

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan - Salt Slough, Mud Slough (north), San Joaquin River from Sack Dam to the mouth of Merced River

10 µg/L

Narrative

Agricultural Supply Water Quality for Agriculture (Ayers & Westcot)

3 35 µg/L

Municipal and Domestic Supply

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective: USEPA IRIS Reference Dose as a drinking water level.

Nickel

For aquatic life variable (see Nickel


CTR Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection - Continuous Concentration, 4-Day Average - varies with water hardness

1




Selenium



California Primary MCL (MUN, human health)

1 5 µg/L (4-day

average) Numeric Freshwater Habitat

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective: NTR Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection -

Continuous Concentration - 4-Day Average

Zinc For aquatic life

variable (see Zinc worksheet).

Numeric Freshwater Habitat

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Chemical Constituents Objective: Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection -

Continuous Concentration, 4-Day Average - varies with water hardness

1

Nutrients

Nitrate as NO3 Nitrate as N

45,000 µg/L as NO3 10,000 µg/L as N

Numeric Municipal and Domestic



Nitrite as Nitrogen 1,000 µg/L as N Numeric Municipal and Domestic



Ammonia

For aquatic life variable (see

ammonia worksheet).

Narrative Freshwater Habitat Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin Plan Toxicity Objective:

USEPA Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria, Continuous Concentration 3



TRIGGER LIMIT

(WQTL)

STANDARD



CATEGORY (SEE

FOOTNOTES)

1.5 mg/L (regardless of pH and Temperature values)

Narrative Municipal and Domestic


Taste and Odor Threshold (Ammore and Hautala) 3

Hardness NA

Phosphorus, total NA

Orthophosphate, soluble NA

TKN NA

Category 1: Constituents that have numeric water quality objectives in the Sac-SJR Basin Plan or other WQO listed by reference such as MCLs (Page III-3.0)* , CTRs (Page III-10.1)*, Category 2: Pesticides with discharge prohibitions. Prohibitions apply to any discharges not subject to board-approved management practices (Page IV-25.0)*. Category 3: Constituent does not have numeric WQO, and does not have a primary MCL. WQTL exceedance is based on implementation of narrative objective. All detections should be tracked. None are default exceedances. MCL- Maximum Contaminant Level MPN- Most Probable Number MUN-Municipal and Domestic Supply NA-Not applicable ND-Not Detected USEPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency (*) -Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Revised October 2007. Narrative WQTLs are based on Water Quality Goals Database. Updated by Jon Marshack on July 16, 2008


ZONE 1 SUMMARY OF EXCEEDANCES

Zone 1 includes the Core site, Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd, and five Represented sites: Coyote

Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd, Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln, Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd,

Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd, and Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd.

The Coalition conducted monthly monitoring for the entire suite of constituents at the Zone 1

Core site, Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd (as scheduled in the 2018 WY MPU). During the 2018

WY, the Coalition was unable to collect samples at Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd during the

November and December 2017 sampling events due to non-contiguous site conditions (Table 34).

The Coalition conducted MPM for water column toxicity to S. capricornutum at Mokelumne River

@ Bruella Rd. Monitoring did not occur at the remaining Represented sites because all

Represented site monitoring requirements were complete. Table 36 includes all exceedances that

occurred in Zone 1 during the 2018 WY.

Field Parameters and E. coli

In Zone 1, exceedances of the WQTLs for DO (8) and E. coli (4) occurred during the 2018 WY

(Table 36).

Exceedances of water quality objectives for field parameters such as DO, SC, and pH are difficult

to source. These parameters are non-conserved, meaning they may fluctuate as water moves

downstream. The concentrations of these parameters are the result of processes occurring in the

water column and in the sediment, which can vary seasonally and/or diurnally.

Dissolved Oxygen

Processes affecting DO in waterways and drains include stream flow, fluctuations in temperature,

loss of vegetation around streams, excessive nutrients (phosphate), associated field parameters

(SC, TOC, TSS), and algae growth.

Monitoring during the 2018 WY resulted in exceedances of the WQTL for DO at Bear Creek @

North Alpine Rd; concentrations ranged from 0.95 to 6.06 mg/L (Table 36).

E. coli

Elevated levels of E. coli in the waterways could be due to 1) storm runoff carrying bacteria from

dairy facilities in the subwatershed (past instances of direct dairy discharges have been noted in

the Coalition region), 2) manure from dairies sold to adjacent farms that if improperly composted

and stored can contribute to elevated levels of bacteria in the waterway, and 3) naturally

occurring E. coli bacteria in the waterways.

During the 2018 WY, there were four exceedances of the WQTL for E. coli, all of which occurred at

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd; concentrations ranged from 275.5 to >2419.6 MPN/100 mL

(Table 36). One of the four exceedances occurred during the January 2018 storm event (High TSS

monitoring); E. coli can be conveyed to waterbodies during stormwater runoff.


Table 36. Zone 1: Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd, Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd, Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln, Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd, Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd, Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd. Red bolded values represent MPM exceedances.

ZONE 1 STATION NAME

SITE TYPE MONITORING TYPE SAMPLE DATE DO,

<7MG/L E. COLI,

>235 MPN/ 100 ML

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Core NM 10/17/2017 4.21

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Core NM; Storm, High TSS 1/11/2018 6.06 2419.6


Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Core NM; Storm 4/10/2018 3.33



Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Core NM, High TSS 7/17/2018 3.9

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Core NM 8/21/2018 4.5 648.8

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Core NM 9/18/2018 0.95 275.5

NM Exceedances 8 4

Total Exceedances 8 4 NM-Normal Monitoring High TSS – Monitoring during periods of expected high total suspended solids in the waterbody. NA-Not applicable; MPM not conducted for constituent.



Zone 2 includes the Core site, French Camp Slough @ Airport Way, and five Represented sites:

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4, Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd, Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd,

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, and Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd.


Core site, French Camp Slough @ Airport Way (as scheduled in the 2018 WY MPU). Due to dry

site conditions, the Coalition was unable to collected samples from Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 and

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd in March, and Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone

Rd in February (Table 34).

Table 37 includes all scheduled MPM and Represented site monitoring for sites in Zone 2 during

the 2018 WY. Table 38 includes all exceedances that occurred in Zone 2 during the 2018 WY.

Table 37. 2018 WY Zone 2 MPM and Represented site monitoring.

SITE NAME SITE TYPE AM

MO

NIA

LE

AD

(DIS

SO

LV

ED

)

CH

LO

RP

YR

IFO

S

DIU

RO

N

P. P

RO

ME

LAS

French Camp Slough at Airport Way Core M M

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 Represented R M

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd Represented R

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd Represented M

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd Represented R M


Represented R M M R

R – Represented site monitoring. M – Management Plan Monitoring.


In Zone 2, exceedances of the WQTLs for DO (12) and E. coli (4) occurred during the 2018 WY

(Table 38).

Dissolved Oxygen

In Zone 2, Duck Creek @ Hwy 4, Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd, Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone

Rd, and Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd are outside the Delta waterways and

are designated with the warm aquatic life beneficial use (BU). Therefore, the sites are assigned a

WQTL of 5 mg/L for DO, instead of the 7 mg/L for cold aquatic life BU.

During the 2018 WY, exceedances of the WQTL for DO occurred at all sites in Zone 2 except Lone

Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd; the concentrations ranged from 2.03 mg/L to 6.71 mg/L (Table 38).


E. coli

During the 2018 WY, there were four exceedances of the WQTL for E. coli, all of which occurred at

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way; concentrations ranged from 365.4 to >2,419.6 MPN/100mL

(Table 38). One of the four exceedances occurred in samples collected during a storm event

(January 11, 2018) and contained the highest concentration of E. coli (Table 38).

Ammonia

Ammonium can enter a waterbody from three sources: 1) direct discharge of agricultural

fertilizers (anhydrous ammonia), 2) direct discharge of animal waste, and 3) discharge from

wastewater treatment plants. In soils, ammonium from fertilizers is typically converted to nitrite

and then to nitrate over a very short period of time. Ammonium is also a positively charged ion

and binds to soil particles preventing leaching of the ammonium ion through the soil to surface

water. Therefore, ammonium from fertilizers would require a direct discharge to surface waters

to detect it in the receiving waters. The method of anhydrous ammonium application to fields is

injection into soil which argues against direct discharge to a receiving waterbody. Animal waste

from confined animal facilities has a high load of dissolved ammonia and organic material that can

easily be transported to surface waters. Dairies are not allowed to discharge lagoon waste into

surface waters, although such discharges are known to occur.

During the 2018 WY, there was a single exceedance of the WQTL for ammonia; the exceedance

occurred during NM in August 2018 at French Camp Slough @ Airport Way (Table 45).

Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide used for pest control on over 60

agricultural commodities in California. In a waterbody, chlorpyrifos can bind to sediment and

remain in the water column (Koc of 6,070). In order to meet the WQO for aquatic life, the

concentration of chlorpyrifos must be below 0.015 µg/L (Table 35). Higher concentrations of

chlorpyrifos are often associated with water column toxicity to C. dubia. The concentration at

which 50% mortality (LC50) to C. dubia occurs is 0.055 µg/L. In July 2015, the California

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) designated chlorpyrifos as a restricted use material.

Chlorpyrifos can only be sold to, purchased by, or possessed/used by a person who holds a

restricted material permit issued by the local County Agriculture Commissioner (CAC). The

permit requirement will provide an effective mechanism to facilitate CAC oversight of

chlorpyrifos use by certified applicators. The CACs will be able to evaluate chlorpyrifos use in the

specific local conditions of each application site.

Samples collected during MPM on June 19, 2018 from Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack

Tone Rd (Temple Creek) contained a concentration of chlorpyrifos (0.038 µg/L; Table 38) that

exceeded the 0.015 µg/L WQTL. The PUR data associated with the exceedance indicate four

applications of chlorpyrifos containing 748 lbs of active ingredient (AI) applied to 160 acres of

walnuts on May 2 and 4, 2018.


During the 2019 WY, MPM for chlorpyrifos is scheduled to occur at Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree

Creek @ Jack Tone Rd in October 2018, March, and May through July 2019 (2019 WY MPU).

Pyrethroids

Pyrethroids are a group of synthetic organic insecticides, similar to the natural pesticide

pyrethrum, which is produced by chrysanthemum flowers. Pyrethroids are applied to a variety of

crops and around urban structures in California throughout the year for pest control. Pyrethroids

are an environmental concern because they are toxic to fish and invertebrates. Common

pyrethroids used in agriculture are bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-

cyhalothrin, and permethrin. Pyrethroids can bind to sediment; however, each pyrethroid displays

different persistence patterns in sediment. Pyrethroids can also persist in the water column. The

trigger limit for pyrethroids, as outlined in the Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for

the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide

Discharges (Attachment 1, Resolution R5-2017-0057), is determined by the acute additive

pyrethroid trigger, which is equal to one (1) chronic additive concentration goal unit (CGU). The

CGUs are calculated as the sum of individual measured pyrethroid concentration-to-chronic

concentration goal ratios.

Samples collected during NM on August 21, 2018 from French Camp Slough @ Airport Way

contained concentrations of bifenthrin that exceeded the 1 µg/L CGU trigger limit (1.93; Table

38). This was the first exceedance of the WQTL for bifenthrin to occur at the site and therefore a

management plan is not required. The PUR data associated with the exceedance indicate 628

applications of bifenthrin containing 4,078 lbs of AI applied across 29, 776 acres of almond,

tomato, and walnut.

During the 2019 WY, the Coalition will monitor for pyrethroids/bifenthrin at French Camp Slough

@ Airport Way according to the PEP process (2019 WY MPU).


Table 38. Zone 2: Duck Creek @ Hwy 4, French Camp Slough @ Airport Way, Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd, Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd, Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd exceedances. Red bolded values represent MPM exceedances.

ZONE 2 STATION NAME


<5MG/L DO,

<7MG/L

E. COLI, >235 MPN/

100 ML

AMMONIA AS

N, >1.5MG/L CHLORPYRIFOS,

>0.015 µG/L PYRETHROIDS

CGU1 >1

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 Represented MPM; Storm 4/10/2018 2.75

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 Represented MPM, NM 7/17/2018 2.03

French Camp Slough at Airport Way Core MPM, NM; Storm 1/11/2018 6.22 2419.6

French Camp Slough at Airport Way Core NM 6/19/2018 6.44 365.4

French Camp Slough at Airport Way Core NM, High TSS 7/17/2018 4.35

French Camp Slough at Airport Way Core MPM, NM 8/21/2018 5.35 2419.6 4.3 (3.2) 1.93

French Camp Slough at Airport Way Core MPM, NM 9/18/2018 6.71 365.4

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd Represented NM 9/18/2018 2.39

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd Represented MPM, NM 6/19/2018 6.67



Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd Represented MPM, NM 6/19/2018 0.038

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd Represented MPM, NM 9/18/2018 4.07

NM Exceedances 4 8 4 1 0 1

MPM Exceedances NA NA NA NA 1 NA

Total Exceedances 4 8 4 1 1 1 1The CGUs are calculated as the sum of individual measured pyrethroid concentration-to-acute concentration goal ratios. A sum exceedance one (1) indicates an exceedance of the chronic additive pyrethroid

pesticides numeric trigger. MPM-Management Plan Monitoring. NM-Normal Monitoring. High TSS – Monitoring during periods of expected high total suspended solids in the waterbody. NA-Not applicable; no MPM conducted for constituent.



Zone 3 includes the Core site, Drain @ Woodbridge Rd, and four Represented sites: Empire Tract

@ 8 Mile Rd, Rindge Tract Drain, Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd, Terminous Tract Drain @

Hwy 12.


Core site, Drain @ Woodbridge (as scheduled in the 2018 WY MPU).



Table 39. 2018 WY Zone 3 MPM and Represented site monitoring. No MPM occurred at the Core site, Drain @ Woodbridge Rd.

SITE NAME SITE TYPE NIT

RA

TE

+ N

ITR

ITE

(AS

N)

AR

SE

NIC

(TO

TA

L)

CH

LO

RP

YR

IFO

S

DIU

RO

N

S. C

AP

RIC

OR

NU

TU

M

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd Represented R M

Rindge Tract Drain Represented R R

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd Represented R

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented M M M M

R – Represented site monitoring. M – Management Plan Monitoring.


In Zone 3, exceedances of the WQTLs for DO (23), SC (10), and E. coli (3) occurred during the 2018

WY (Table 40).

Dissolved Oxygen

During the 2018 WY, exceedances of the <7mg/L WQTL for DO occurred at all sites in Zone 3.

There were 23 exceedances with concentrations ranging from 1.96 mg/L to 6.22 mg/L (Table 40).

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Rindge Tract Drain are all pump stations

within the Delta islands and pumping is required to move water from the agricultural drains to the

Delta channels. In most cases there is no flow in the drains unless the pumps are activated.

Furthermore, algal production and decay, along with stagnant, warm water at these sites can

result in depletion of oxygen in the waterbody and contribute to low DO concentrations.

However, once the drain water is pumped into the Delta, it becomes oxygenated.

Specific Conductivity

The Basin Plan’s seasonal salinity water quality objectives for September through March (1000

µS/cm) and from April through August (700 µS/cm) are applied for all sites in the SJCDWQC. High

salinity levels resulting in exceedances of the WQTLs for SC are common in the legal Delta due to


1) tidal influence in the area, and 2) hydrostatic pressure moving Delta water to the interior of the

islands and/or the use of Delta water for irrigation.

During the 2018 WY, exceedances of both the seasonal WQTLs for SC occurred at sites in Zone 3;

exceedances occurred at all sites in the zone. There were 10 exceedances of the seasonal WQTLs

for SC ranging from 708 µS/cm to 1,784 µS/cm (Table 40).

E. coli

During the 2018 WY, there were three exceedances of the WQTL for E. coli; all the exceedances

occurred in samples collected from Drain @ Woodbridge Rd and concentrations ranged from

261.3 to 517.2 MPN/100 mL. One of the four exceedances occurred after a storm (High TSS

monitoring event, November 16, 2017; Table 40).

Nitrate + Nitrite as N

Potential sources of nitrate in surface waters include runoff of fertilizer or organic matter from

irrigated fields, leaking septic systems, waste-treatment facility effluent, and inputs from animal

waste. These sources can move to surface waters through above ground runoff or shallow

subsurface flows. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and ammonium in animal waste that enter

surface waters can be converted to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. Possible sources of animal waste

in a waterbody include dairy and poultry operations, grazing livestock on pastureland, and/or

wildlife.

There are elevated concentrations of nitrate in the aquifers beneath the SJCDWQC region due to

years of movement of nitrate into groundwater. Many of these aquifers are very shallow. As a

result, nitrate in shallow groundwater may now be seeping into Delta waterways resulting in

exceedances of the WQTL for nitrate. Deeper wells contaminated with nitrate can be a source of

fertilizer in irrigation water. Excessive nutrients can cause eutrophication of surface waters

resulting in low DO and an inability to support healthy aquatic communities. Sources of nutrients,

organic carbon, and low DO are difficult to identify. Because of their extreme solubility, nitrate in

fertilizers could move to surface waters immediately after fertilizer applications. However, it

would be highly unlikely that applications occurring in the spring could result in exceedances of

the WQTL throughout the irrigation season.

During the 2018 WY, a single exceedance of the WQTL for nitrate + nitrite as N occurred at

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd (16 mg/L; Table 40). This is the second exceedance to

occur at this site within three years and therefore the Coalition initiated a management plan for

nitrate + nitrite at Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd in the 2019 WY.

Arsenic

Products containing arsenic for agricultural purposes have been phased out since the 1980s.

However, arsenic acid, arsenic acid anhydride, arsenic trioxide, and chromate copper arsenate are

currently registered for nonagricultural uses including wood protectants, household ant killer,

weed killer around ditches, nonagricultural areas, buildings, driveways, sidewalks, and fencerows.

Moreover, the geology of the Coalition region is also known to have naturally occurring sources of


arsenic and it is likely that exceedances of the arsenic WQTL are due to naturally occurring

instances. Elevated levels of arsenic are common in Zone 3 and sites in Zone 3 naturally contain

higher levels of arsenic in the soil (Burrow et al., 2004; Moran et al., 2009; Westcot et al., 1990).

There are no registered products for agricultural use containing arsenic and therefore no

associated PUR data.

During the 2018 WY, there were three exceedances of the WQTL for arsenic. All three

exceedances occurred at Drain @ Woodbridge Rd during High TSS monitoring events with

concentrations ranging from 17 to 18 µg/L (Table 40). The exceedances occurred either during

storm sampling or during the irrigation season when the potential for runoff is increased.

Toxicity

Water Column Toxicity to S. capricornutum

During the 2018 WY, samples collected from Drain @ Woodbridge Rd (3) and Rindge Tract Drain

(2) were toxic to S. capricornutum ( Table 40). No TIEs were required for any toxicities at Drain @

Woodbridge and Rindge Tract Drain because algal growth was greater than 50% in all samples.

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd

Samples collected during storm monitoring (High TSS monitoring event) on January 11, 2018 from

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd were toxic to S. capricornutum (67% growth compared to the control).

The PUR data associated with the toxicity indicated 20 applications of 440 lbs of herbicides across

538 acres of alfalfa and wine grapes from December 23, 2017 through January 9, 2018 (Appendix

I). Pendimethalin accounted for the majority of herbicides with 177 lbs of AI applied.

Samples collected during NM on March 14, 2018 from Drain @ Woodbridge Rd were toxic to S.

capricornutum (81% growth compared to the control). The PUR data associated with the toxicity

indicated 10 applications of 697 lbs of herbicides across 876 acres of alfalfa and wine grapes from

February 15 through March 1, 2018 (Appendix I). Glyphosate accounted for the majority of

herbicides with 500 lbs of AI applied. The Coalition also analyzed for a suite of herbicides in

samples collected at the same time, including glyphosate; there were no detections.

Samples collected during NM on June 19, 2018 from Drain @ Woodbridge Rd were toxic to S.


indicated 21 applications of 985 lbs of herbicides across 1,273 acres of alfalfa, corn, and wine

grapes from April 18, 2018 through June 19, 2018 (Appendix I). Glyphosate and copper

accounted for nearly all the herbicides applied.

During the 2019 WY, MPM for water column toxicity to S. capricornutum is scheduled to occur at

Drain@ Woodbridge Rd in January, March, and June 2019 (2019 WY MPU).

Rindge Tract Drain

Samples collected during NM on February 20, 2018 from Rindge Tract Drain were toxic to S.


indicated 35 applications of 2,285 lbs of herbicides across 3,065 acres of alfalfa and wine grapes


from January 29 through February 16, 2018 (Appendix I). Glyphosate accounted for the majority

of herbicides with 1,800 lbs of AI applied.

Samples collected during NM on March 14, 2018 from Rindge Tract Drain were toxic to S.


indicated 6 applications of 989 lbs of herbicides across 960 acres of alfalfa from February 14

through 16, 2018; glyphosate accounted for the majority of herbicides with 952 lbs of AI applied

(Appendix I), the only other herbicide applied was oxyfluorfen.

During the 2019 WY, MPM for water column toxicity to S. capricornutum is scheduled to occur at

Rindge Tract Drain from February through April 2019 (2019 WY MPU).


Table 40. Zone 3: Drain @ Woodbridge, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd, Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12. Red bolded values represent MPM exceedances.

ZONE 3 STATION NAME


<7MG/L

SC, >1000

µS/CM (SEP-MAR)

SC, >700

µS/CM (APR-AUG)

E. COLI, >235 MPN/

100 ML

NITRATE +

NITRITE AS N, >10MG/L

ARSENIC, >10 µG/L

S. CAPRICORNUTUM,

% CONTROL

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM 10/17/2017 4.67

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM; Storm, High TSS 11/16/2017 4.1 261.3

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM; Storm, High TSS 1/11/2018 5.26 17 67

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM 3/14/2018 5.18 461.1 81

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core MPM, NM; Storm 4/10/2018 2.69 980

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core MPM, NM 5/15/2018 4.66 857

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM 6/19/2018 2.75 825 517.2 74

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM, High TSS 7/17/2018 4.47 845 18

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM, High TSS 8/21/2018 3.06 17

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd Core NM 9/18/2018 1.96

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd Represented NM 12/12/2017 2.55

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd Represented MPM; Storm 4/10/2018 2.18 1524

Rindge Tract Drain Represented NM; Storm 1/11/2018 4.01

Rindge Tract Drain Represented NM 2/20/2018 1021 75

Rindge Tract Drain Represented NM 3/14/2018 3.46 89

Rindge Tract Drain Represented NM; Storm 4/10/2018 4.58 708

Rindge Tract Drain Represented NM 6/19/2018 5.9

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd Represented NM; Storm 1/11/2018 2.76 1784 16

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented NM; Storm, High TSS 11/16/2017 5.96

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented MPM, NM; Storm, High

TSS 1/11/2018 1173

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented MPM; Storm 4/10/2018 4.25 1241

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented MPM, NM 5/15/2018 6.22

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented NM, High TSS 7/17/2018 5.76

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented MPM, NM, High TSS 8/21/2018 4.15

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Represented MPM, NM 9/18/2018 5.64

NM Exceedances 23 3 7 3 10 3 5

MPM Exceedances NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

Total Exceedances 23 3 7 3 10 3 5 MPM-Management plan monitoring NM-Normal Monitoring High TSS – Monitoring during periods of expected high total suspended solids in the waterbody. NA- Not applicable; no MPM conducted for constituent.



Zone 4 includes the Core site, Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, and four Represented sites: East

Orwood Tract Drain, Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln, Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump,

and South McDonald Island Pump.


Core site, Bacon Island Pump @ Old River (as scheduled in the 2018 WY MPU).



Table 41. 2018 WY Zone 4 MPM and Represented site monitoring. During the 2018 WY, MPM was not scheduled at Bacon island Pump @ Old River Rd and MPM and/or NM was not scheduled at Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln.

SITE NAME SITE TYPE C.

DU

BIA

S. C

AP

RIC

OR

NU

TU

M

East Orwood Tract Drain Represented M

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented M M

South McDonald Island Pump Represented M

M – Management Plan Monitoring.


In Zone 4, exceedances of the WQTLs for DO (21), SC (6), and E. coli (3) occurred during the 2018

WY (Table 42).

Dissolved Oxygen

In Zone 4, exceedances of the WQTL for DO occurred at all sites scheduled for monitoring during

the 2018 WY. There were 21 exceedances of the <7 mg/L WQTL of DO with concentrations

ranging from 0.16 mg/L to 6.92 mg/L (Table 42). Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, East Orwood

Tract Drain, Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump, and South McDonald Island Pump are all

pump stations within the Delta islands and pumping is required to remove water from the

agricultural drains. In most cases there is no flow in the drains unless the pumps are active.

Therefore, low DO concentrations in the waterbody are common due to the lack of water flow and

algal production and decay. However, once the water is pumped into the Delta, it becomes

oxygenated.


In Zone 4, exceedances of the seasonal WQTL for SC occurred at all sites scheduled for

monitoring during the 2018 WY. Six exceedances of the WQTL for SC occurred and ranged from

963 µS/cm to 1,381 µS/cm (Table 42).


E. coli

During the 2018 WY, there were three exceedances of the WQTL for E. coli; all three exceedances

occurred in samples collected from Bacon Island Pump @ Old River. Exceedances ranged from

387.3 to >2419.6 MPN/100 mL (Table 42).

Ammonia

Ammonia as N can enter a waterbody from three sources 1) direct discharge of agricultural

fertilizers (anhydrous ammonia), 2) direct discharge of animal waste, and 3) discharge from

wastewater treatment plants. In soils, ammonium from fertilizers is typically converted to nitrite

and then to nitrate over a short period of time. Therefore, ammonium from fertilizers would

require a direct discharge to surface waters to detect ammonia in the receiving waterbody. The

method of anhydrous ammonium application to fields is injection into soil which argues against

direct discharge to a receiving waterbody. Ammonium can also be formed in the waterbody

through the mineralization of organic nitrogen.

During the 2018 WY, there were two exceedances of the WQTL for ammonia. Both exceedances

occurred during NM at Bacon Island Pump @ Old River. The Coalition will initiate a management

plan for ammonia at Bacon Island Pump @ Old River in the 2019 WY.

Toxicity


During the 2018 WY, samples collected from Bacon Island Pump @ Old River (1), East Orwood

Tract Drain (2), and Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump (4) were toxic to S. capricornutum. No

TIEs were required for any toxicities at any sites because algal growth was greater than 50% in all

samples.

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River

Samples collected from Bacon Island Pump @ Old River during NM on December 12, 2017 were

toxic to S. capricornutum (80% growth compared to the control). There were no PUR data

associated with this toxicity. The PUR data queried for this report are preliminary. Pesticide use

data continually gets updated throughout the year. The Coalition also sampled concurrently for a

suite of herbicides commonly associated with algae toxicity and there were no detections of any

herbicide that could have contributed to the toxicity.

East Orwood Tract Drain

Samples collected from East Orwood Tract Drain during MPM on February 20, 2018 and April 10,

2018 were toxic to S. capricornutum (82% and 75% growth compared to the control, respectively).

The PUR data associated with both toxicities indicated six applications of six lbs of herbicides

applied across 470 acres of wheat from February 13 through 15, 2018 (Appendix I).

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump

Samples collected from Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump during storm MPM on January 11,

2018, were toxic to S. capricornutum (52% growth compared to the control). The PUR data


associated with the toxicity indicated 22 applications of 511 lbs of herbicides applied over 436

acres of alfalfa and as rights of way from December 30, 2017 through January 2, 2018 (Appendix

I). Diuron and glyphosate are both toxic to algae and accounted for the majority of chemicals

applied.

Samples collected from Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump during MPM on February 20,

2018, were toxic to S. capricornutum (84% growth compared to the control). The PUR data

associated with the toxicity indicated 109 applications of 2,397 lbs of herbicides applied over

3,227 acres of alfalfa, asparagus, and fodder from January 26 through February 20, 2018

(Appendix I). Diuron and glyphosate accounted for the majority of chemicals applied.

Samples collected from Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump during MPM on April 10, 2018,

were toxic to S. capricornutum (79% growth compared to the control. The PUR data associated

with the exceedance indicate 88 applications of 2,721 lbs of herbicides across 3,114 acres;

glyphosate accounted for the majority of herbicides with 1,020 lbs of AI applied (Appendix I).

Samples collected from Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump during MPM on July 17, 2018,

were toxic to S. capricornutum (83% growth compared to the control). The PUR data associated

with the exceedance indicate 50 applications of 1,600 lbs of herbicides across 1,627 acres;

glyphosate accounted for the majority of herbicides with of 1,112 lbs AI applied (Appendix I).


Table 42. Zone 4: Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, East Orwood Tract Drain, Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln, Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump, South McDonald Island Pump. Red bolded values represent MPM exceedances.

ZONE 4 STATION NAME


<7MG/L

PH, <6.5 AND

>8.5 UNITS

SC, >1000

µS/CM (SEP-MAR)

SC, >700

µS/CM (APR-AUG)

E. COLI, >235 MPN/

100 ML

AMMONIA

AS N, >1.5MG/L

S. CAPRICORNUTUM,

% CONTROL

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM 10/17/2017 1 1.7

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM; Storm, High TSS 11/16/2017 2.77 2419.6

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM 12/12/2017 3.79 8.75 1.2 80

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM; Storm, High TSS 1/11/2018 3.66

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM 2/20/2018 1.75


Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM; Storm 4/10/2018 0.71 6.49 387.3

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM 5/15/2018 2.46 727


Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM, High TSS 7/17/2018 0.16

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River Core NM, High TSS 8/21/2018 1.08


East Orwood Tract Drain Represented MPM, NM 2/20/2018 2.02 82

East Orwood Tract Drain Represented MPM; Storm 4/10/2018 2.22 1228 75

East Orwood Tract Drain Represented MPM, NM 5/15/2018 0.34

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented MPM, NM 12/12/2017 1250

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented MPM; Storm 1/11/2018 5.96 52

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented MPM, NM 2/20/2018 1381 84

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented MPM; Storm 4/10/2018 5.41 1265 79

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented MPM, NM 5/15/2018 4.45 963

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump Represented MPM, NM 7/17/2018 4.11 979 83

South McDonald Island Pump Represented MPM, NM 2/20/2018 6.92

South McDonald Island Pump Represented MPM, NM 3/14/2018 4.09



Total Exceedances 21 2 2 4 3 2 7 MPM-Management Plan Monitoring. NM-Normal Monitoring High TSS – Monitoring during periods of expected high total suspended solids in the waterbody. NA-Not applicable; no MPM conducted for constituent



Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave is the Core site in Zone 5, and the only monitoring location in

the zone. The Coalition conducted monthly monitoring for the entire suite of constituents as

indicated in the 2018 WY MPU. During the 2018 WY, the Coalition did not collect samples from

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave during storm monitoring in December 2017 because the

waterbody was non-contiguous (Table 34).

Table 43 includes all exceedances for Zone 5 during the 2018 WY.


In Zone 5, exceedances of the WQTLs for DO (10), pH (1), and E. coli (4) occurred during the 2018

WY (Table 43).

Dissolved Oxygen

In Zone 5, Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave is outside the Delta waterways and is designated

with warm aquatic life beneficial use; therefore, the site is assigned a WQTL of 5 mg/L for DO.

Monitoring during the 2018 WY resulted in 10 exceedances of the WQTL for DO with

concentrations ranging from 0.51 mg/L to 4.44 mg/L (Table 43). Discharge was recorded as zero

during five of the monitoring events where exceedances occurred. Low flow conditions contribute

to low concentrations of DO.

pH

Zone 5 monitoring resulted in a single exceedance of the WQTL for pH in April 2018 (6.45; Table

43).

E. coli

During the 2018 WY, there were four exceedances of the WQTL for E. coli; all four exceedances

occurred either during a storm event or during the irrigation season when there was potential for

runoff.

Toxicity


Samples collected during NM on June 19, 2018 were toxic to S. capricornutum (76% growth

compared to the control). A TIE was not required because algal growth was greater than 50%

compared to the control. The PUR data associated with the toxicity indicated 69 applications of

3,063 lbs of herbicides across 2,307 acres from April 6 through June 18, 2018; glyphosate

accounted for the majority of herbicides with of 1,349 lbs of AI applied (Appendix I). The Coalition

also sampled for a suite of herbicides commonly associated with algae toxicity during the June

sampling event and no herbicides were detected.


Table 43. Zone 5: Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave. Red bolded values represent MPM exceedances.

ZONE 5 STATION NAME

SITE

TYPE MONITORING TYPE SAMPLE DATE

DO, <5MG/L

PH, <6.5 AND >8.5

UNITS

E. COLI, >235 MPN/ 100

ML

S. CAPRICORNUTUM, %

CONTROL

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM 10/17/2017 1.79

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM, MPM, TMDL; Storm,

High TSS 1/11/2018 4.12


Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core MPM, NM 3/14/2018 4.13

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM; Storm 4/10/2018 0.51 6.45 613.1

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM, MPM, TMDL 5/15/2018 1.16

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM, TMDL 6/19/2018 3.1 275.5 76

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM, TMDL, High TSS 7/17/2018 2.02 325.5

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Core NM, TMDL 8/21/2018 3.5 488.4


NM Exceedances 10 1 4 1

MPM Exceedances NA NA NA 0

Total Exceedances 10 1 4 1 NM-Normal Monitoring MPM-Management Plan Monitoring. High TSS – Monitoring during periods of expected high total suspended solids in the waterbody. NA-Not applicable; no MPM conducted for constituent.



Zone 6 consists of only one monitoring site, Sand Creek @ Hwy 4 Bypass, which is classified as

neither a Core nor Represented site. During the 2018 WY, the Coalition did not monitor Sand

Creek at Hwy 4 Bypass since all monitoring requirements are complete.


Zone 7 includes the Core site, Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd, and one Represented site: Upper

Roberts Island Drain. Sampling crews noted a large amount of water hyacinth overgrowth at

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd during every scheduled monitoring event during the 2018 WY.

The water hyacinth had to be physically removed for sample collection in order to submerge the

sampling bottles during every event. The removal of the plants often resulted in mobilization of

sediment and therefore any sediment-bound constituents of concern could have been suspended

and then collected in the process.


Core site, Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd (as scheduled in the 2018 WY MPU). Table 44 includes

all scheduled MPM and Represented site monitoring for sites in Zone 4 in the 2018 WY. Table 45

includes all exceedances for Zone 7 during the 2018 WY.

Table 44. 2018 WY Zone 7 MPM and Represented site monitoring.

SITE NAME SITE TYPE TO

TA

L A

MM

ON

IA

CH

LO

RP

YR

IFO

S

MA

LA

TH

ION

C. D

UB

IA

S. C

AP

RIC

OR

NU

TU

M

H. A

ZT

EC

A

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Core M M M M

Upper Roberts Island Drain Represented R R

R – Represented site monitoring. M – Management plan monitoring.


Exceedances of the WQTLs for DO (12), SC (8), and E. coli (3) occurred during the 2018 WY (Table

45).

Dissolved Oxygen

In Zone 7, there were exceedances occurred at both sites scheduled for monitoring in the 2018

WY. There were 12 exceedances of the <7 mg/L WQTL of DO with concentrations ranging from

0.3 mg/L to 3.95 mg/L (Table 45). Both Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd and Upper Roberts Island

Drain are pump stations on Delta islands and pumping is required to remove water from the

agricultural drains. In most cases there is no flow in the drains unless the pumps are active.

Therefore, exceedances of the WQTL for DO are common in this zone due to the lack of water

flow. Furthermore, algal production and decay, along with stagnant, warm water at these sites can


contribute to low DO detections. However, once the water is pumped into the Delta, it becomes

oxygenated.


In Zone 7, exceedances of the seasonal WQTLs for SC occurred at both sites during the 2018 WY.

Eight exceedances of the two seasonal WQTLs for SC occurred and ranged from 846 µS/cm to

2,558 µS/cm (Table 45).

E. coli

During the 2018 WY, there were three exceedances of the WQTL for E. coli, all of which occurred

at Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd. The concentrations of E. coli ranged from 307.6 to 1,732.9

MPN/100 mL (Table 45).

Ammonia

During the 2018 WY, there was a single exceedance of the WQTL for ammonia; the exceedance

occurred during NM in July 2018 at Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd (Table 45).

Arsenic

During the 2018 WY, there were two exceedances of the WQTL for arsenic; both exceedances

occurred during NM at Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd, with concentrations of 11 mg/L and 14

mg/L (Table 45).

Toxicity


During the 2018 WY, three samples collected from Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd were toxic to

S. capricornutum. No TIEs were not required because algal growth was greater than 50%

compared to the control.

Samples collected for MPM during storm sampling event (High TSS monitoring event) on January

11, 2018 at Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd were toxic to S. capricornutum (54% growth

compared to the control). Since algal growth was greater than 50% compared to the control, a TIE

was not required. The PUR data associated with the toxicity indicated 38 applications of 1,127 lbs

of herbicides applied across 1,437 acres of alfalfa from December 19, 2017 through January 3,

2018 (Appendix I). The Coalition also sampled for herbicides commonly associated with algae

toxicity during the January sampling event and there was a detection of pendimethalin (0.29 µg/L),

a pre-emergent herbicide. There were 573 lbs of pendimethalin applied to alfalfa from December

16 through 19, 2017. Since pendimethalin adsorbs strongly to soil organic matter (Koc = 17,491),

sediment runoff during the storm event likely contributed to the detection. The U.S. EPA lists the

EC50, (the concentration of a chemical that results in a 50% reduction in algae growth compared to

the control) of pendimethalin as 5.4 ppb (Pluntke, 2004). The detected concentration of

pendimethalin in the January samples was most likely too low to produce a negative effect.


Samples collected for MPM on May 15, 2018 from Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd were toxic to

S. capricornutum (76% growth compared to the control). Since algal growth was greater than 50%

compared to the control, a TIE was not required. The PUR data associated with the toxicity

indicated 48 applications of 2,013 lbs of herbicides applied across 1,923 acres of primarily alfalfa

and tomatoes from April 20 through May 11, 2018 (Appendix I). The Coalition also sampled for

herbicides commonly associated with algae toxicity during the May sampling event and there was

a detection of pendimethalin (3.60 µg/L). The associated PUR data indicate 84 lbs of

pendimethalin were applied to alfalfa and tomato on April 20 and 22, 2018.

Samples collected during MPM and High TSS monitoring on July 17, 2018 from Union Island Drain

@ Bonetti Rd were toxic to S. capricornutum (65% growth compared to the control). Since algal

growth was greater than 50% compared to the control, a TIE was not required. The PUR data

associated with the toxicity indicate 12 applications of 5 lbs of rimsulfuron applied across 158

acres of tomatoes on June 30, 2018 (Appendix I). The Coalition also sampled for herbicides

commonly associated with algae toxicity during the July sampling event and there were no

detections.


Table 45. Zone 7: Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd and Upper Roberts Island Drain. Red bolded values represent MPM exceedances.

ZONE 7 STATION NAME

SITE TYPE MONITORING TYPE SAMPLE

DATE DO,

<7MG/L

SC, >1000

µS/CM (SEP-MAR)

SC, >700

µS/CM (APR-AUG)

E. COLI, >235 MPN/

100 ML

AMMONIA

AS N, >1.5MG/L

ARSENIC, >10 µG/L

S. CAPRICORNUTUM,

% CONTROL

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM 10/17/2017 0.66

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core NM; Storm, High TSS 11/16/2017 2.7 1732.9

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM; Storm, High TSS 1/11/2018 3.95 1268 307.6 11 54

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM 3/14/2018 2.32 1185

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM; Storm 4/10/2018 2.71 1710

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM 5/15/2018 5.3 76

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM 6/19/2018 1.05

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core MPM, NM, High TSS 7/17/2018 0.3 848 579.4 3.3 14 65

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Core NM, High TSS 8/21/2018 1 846

Upper Roberts Island Drain Represented NM; Storm 11/16/2017 0.69 1047

Upper Roberts Island Drain Represented NM 3/14/2018 1.84 2558

Upper Roberts Island Drain Represented NM; Storm 4/10/2018 2.5 2503



Total Exceedances 12 4 4 3 1 2 3 MPM-Management Plan Monitoring NM – Normal Monitoring High TSS – Monitoring during periods of expected high total suspended solids in the waterbody.


DISCUSSION OF GROUNDWATER TREND MONITORING RESULTS

The Coalition began implementing its GQTM program from October 22 through November 7,

2018. There are originally 54 wells identified for the GQTM network. Coalition member wells

accounted for 42 groundwater wells, and CDPH wells accounted for 12 (Table 46). There were 10

groundwater wells that were unable to be sampled due to inability to contact the well owners,

access restrictions, or lack of well seal information (Table 46). Therefore, the Coalition

groundwater trend monitoring network for 2018 included 44 wells.

During 2018, there were 12 CDPH PWS wells identified as part of the Coalition’s GQTM network.

Coalition staff sampled a single of the CDPH wells, Stockton Utility District staff sampled three of

the CDPH wells, and City of Manteca staff sampled three CDPH wells resulting in seven total

CDPH wells sampled (Table 46). Due to inability to coordinate with the remaining CDPH well

owners, five CDPH wells included in the network were not sampled in 2018.

Monitoring results for each well, including field parameters, nitrate, cations, and anions, are

included in Attachment C. Efforts to identify additional monitoring wells to supplement the

current monitoring well network is ongoing.

Table 46. SJCDWQC network well counts for 2018. WELL TYPES POTENTIAL NETWORK WELLS UNABLE TO SCHEDULE TOTAL NETWORK WELLS FOR 2018

CDPH 12 5 7

Member Wells 42 5 36

TOTALS 54 10 44

QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Existing Data

Precision and accuracy were not assessed for existing data from CDPH wells. The CDPH well

results collected as part of a different monitoring program are included in the GQTM but were not

collected under the SJCDWQC QAPP. Thus, precision and accuracy of those results are not

discussed within this report. However, the existing data were processed and flagged according to

the MQOs outlined in the QAPP. In order to utilize the data, the Coalition confirmed that all

required constituents were analyzed for using EPA or Standard Methods by laboratories certified

under the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, that each batch contained minimum

quality control samples, and that holding times were met. In cases where all QC results were not

received by the Coalition, confirmation was received from the laboratories that QC requirements

were met.

Completeness

Completeness is assessed on three levels: field and transport, analytical, and batch completeness.

Field and transport completeness are based on the number of samples successfully collected and

transported to the appropriate laboratories. Field and transport completeness may be less than


100% due to bottle breakage during sample transport to the laboratory or inability to access a site.

Wells that lack enough water to collect samples (e.g. dry) are considered “sampled” and are

counted towards field and transport completeness. Analytical completeness is based on the

number of samples successfully analyzed by the laboratory. Analytical completeness may be less

than 100% due to bottles breaking while at the laboratory or if an analysis failed or was not

performed due to laboratory error. Batch completeness assesses whether chemistry and toxicity

batches were processed with the required QC samples as prescribed in the QAPP.

Field and Transport and Analytical Completeness

Overall field and transport completeness for scheduled well samples and field parameters was

100% for 2018 sampling (Table 47 and Table 48). All samples submitted to the laboratory were

analyzed. Therefore, analytical completeness was 100% for 2018 (Table 47). Field parameter

measurements (oxidation-reduction potential, DO, pH, SC, water temperature and turbidity) were

taken at each site for all member wells when there was enough water for sample collection. Field

measurements were collected and recorded for 95.1% of the wells sampled. When CDPH wells

were sampled by BSK, field parameter results were not recorded. Additional steps and

communication are occurring with the CDPH monitoring programs to ensure that field parameter

measurements are recorded and submitted to the Coalition for future monitoring. Oxidation-

reduction potential and turbidity measurements are not required by the Work Plan. Any turbidity

measurements taken were used as a parameter to determine if a sample should be field filtered.

Field duplicate and field blank samples are collected by sampling crews in the field and

transported to the laboratories. These field QC samples are collected during each event, as

prescribed by the QAPP. Equipment blanks are not collected because samples were collected

from the wells without the use of additional equipment (e.g. peristaltic pump). Field duplicate and

field blank samples were only collected were collected from member wells monitored by MLJ

Environmental. At a minimum, field QC samples must comprise 10% of the samples collected.

Field QC samples were collected at a frequency of 14% of the environmental samples collected

under the SJCDWQC for 2018 (Table 49).

Batch Completeness

Each chemistry batch must be processed with a minimum set of QC samples as prescribed in the

SJCDWQC QAPP. Batch completeness is determined based on whether all required QC samples

were run with every batch. For network wells monitored as prescribed within the QAPP, 100% of

chemistry batches (58 of 58) met batch completeness requirements. Chemistry batches for CDPH

well results not collected under the SJCDWQC QAPP were verbally confirmed to have met QC

requirements.

Hold Time Compliance

Each sample must be stored, extracted (if applicable), and analyzed within a specific timeframe to

meet hold time requirements as outlined in the SJCDWQC QAPP. Results associated with hold

time violations are flagged.


All well samples were analyzed within hold time with an overall hold time compliance of 100% for

2018 (Table 50 and Table 51).

Precision and Accuracy

Precision and accuracy are evaluated for each type of QC sample analyzed during 2018 (Table 52

and Table 53).

The tables include:

• Evaluation of blank samples (field blank and laboratory blank): Table 52, Table 53;

• Evaluation of field duplicate precision for chemistry: Table 52;

• Evaluation of laboratory accuracy of recovery (LCS, MS): Table 53; and

• Evaluation of laboratory precision of duplicate samples (LCSD, MSD, and laboratory

duplicate): Table 53.

During 2018, each batch was processed with a combination of any of the following QC samples:

field blank, laboratory blank, MS, LCS, laboratory duplicate, and field duplicate. Blank samples

(field blank and laboratory blank) are analyzed to determine sources of contamination in either

the field (field blanks) or the laboratory (laboratory blank). Percent recoveries in LCS and MS

samples are calculated to assess laboratory accuracy in recovering known concentrations of

analytes. The RPDs are calculated in duplicate samples (laboratory duplicate, LCS duplicate, MS

duplicate) to assess the laboratory’s precision of recoveries. In turn, the RPD calculated for field

duplicates assesses field sampling precision.

An evaluation of the precision and accuracy for each analyte or group of analytes is discussed in

the sections below. Batches are accepted by evaluating all measures of precision and accuracy.

Justification for accepting data when MQO acceptability criteria fell below 90% for the WY is

provided in each analyte section. Overall, precision and accuracy criteria were met for more than

90% of the samples for all criteria and all data are considered usable.

When a concentration of a chemical constituent in an environmental sample exceeds the highest

point on a calibration curve, a dilution of the sample is required. The laboratory reports the result

of the diluted sample multiplied by the dilution factor to represent the concentration of the

analyte detected in the original sample. All diluted samples are flagged accordingly in the

database. The RL associated with a diluted sample is multiplied by the dilution factor, thereby,

increasing the RL. Therefore, for each dilution that occurs, there is a corresponding increase in the

limit of quantification.

Reporting limits are established according to QAPP guidelines and set at levels where laboratory

instruments can reliably detect analytes in samples. Although instruments can detect analytes

below the RL, accurate detections become less reliable and results reported below the RL are

associated with variability. Laboratories report all detections, even when analytes are detected at

concentrations below the RL. When the concentration of an analyte is reported below the RL and

above the MDL, the result is reported as an estimated value and flagged in the laboratory report

with a “J Flag”.


As outlined in the groundwater QAPP, QC samples include laboratory blank, field blank, field

duplicate, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate (often LCSD or MSD samples) samples for all analytes

with the following exceptions: 1) no MS samples are required for alkalinity as CaCO3, bicarbonate,

carbonate, hydroxide, and total dissolved solids (TDS) and 2) no LCS samples are run for carbonate

and hydroxide. All analytes were within the MQO acceptability criteria of 90% for blanks (field,

laboratory, and equipment), LCS, and lab duplicates (included LCSD and MSD). Analytes that were

not within the MQO acceptability criteria of 90% are outlined below with explanation for

accepting the data and considering it usable.

Sodium failed to meet the 90% acceptability threshold for laboratory blank (3 of 4, 75%). Sodium

was detected in the laboratory blank at 0.05 mg/L which is equal to the RL. The laboratory blank

detection was less than 10 times the nearest environmental sample of 9.33 mg/L. The field blank

sample associated with this batch was non-detect. The batch was accepted based on the non-

detect field blank and the comparatively high environmental sample results.

The MS recoveries that failed to meet the 90% acceptability threshold included: nitrate + nitrite as

N (8 of 12, 66.7%) and sodium (8 of 12, 66.7%).

Two MS recoveries for nitrate + nitrite as N run on a sample collected on November 7 were below

the lower control limit of 80% with matrix spike recoveries of 69% and 41%. The LCS associated

with the batch recovered within limits at 97%. The batch was accepted based on the acceptable

LCS recovery.

From a nitrate + nitrite as N sample collected October 24, a MS recovery was above the upper

control limit of 120% with the matrix spike recovery at 123%. However, the matrix spike

duplicate was within control limits at 108%. The LCS associated with the batch recovered within

limits at 98%. The batch was accepted based on the single acceptable MS recovery and the

acceptable LCS recovery.

, An MSD recovery for nitrate + nitrite as N run on a sample collected on October 22 was below

the lower recovery limit of 80% with a matrix spike recovery of 79%. However, the corresponding

duplicate MS recovery was within limits at 90%. An additional MS and MSD were run with the

batch and both recoveries were within control limits at 114% and 102%, respectively. The LCS

associated with the batch recovered within limits at 95%. The batch was accepted based on the

single acceptable MS recovery, the acceptable second set of MS and MSD recoveries, and the

acceptable LCS recovery. All nitrate results were accepted and considered usable.

Two matrix spikes run off on a non-project sample had recoveries for sodium were above the

upper control limit of 125% with the matrix spike recoveries at 580% and 290%. The non-project

native sample had a high concentration of 620 mg/L which was more than 6 times greater than the

spike amount. From a sample collected on October 25, an additional MS and MSD were run with

the batch and both recoveries were within control limits at 78% and 89%, respectively. The LCS

associated with the batch recovered within limits at 93%. The batch was accepted based on the

acceptable second set of MS and MSD recoveries and the acceptable LCS recovery.

From a sample collected on October 22, , two matrix spike recoveries for sodium were below the

lower limit of 75% with matrix spike recoveries 60% and 40%. An additional MS and MSD were


run with the batch and both recoveries were within control limits at 120% and 80%, respectively.

The LCS associated with the batch recovered within limits at 88%. The batch was accepted based

on the acceptable second set of MS and MSD recoveries and the acceptable LCS recovery. Sodium

results were accepted and considered usable.

Corrective Actions

Corrective action is an activity that should be used to stop the reoccurrence of non-conformities.

In some cases, the Coalition will address corrective action options to improve QC measures that

are consistently demonstrating failure to meet MQOs.

The Coalition will take additional steps and communicate with the CDPH monitoring programs to

ensure that field parameter measurements and additional laboratory QC are recorded and

submitted to the Coalition for future monitoring.


Table 47. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM field and transport and analytical completeness: well sample counts and percentages. The table counts environmental samples only; field duplicates are not included. Each analyte is sorted by lab agency, method, and analyte and in alphabetical order. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet the acceptability requirement.

LAB

AGENCY METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE

WELL SAMPLES

SCHEDULED DRY NO ACCESS SAMPLES COLLECTED

FIELD AND TRANSPORT

COMPLETENESS (%)

TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES ANALYZED

ANALYTICAL

COMPLETENESS (%)

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Boron 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Calcium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Magnesium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Potassium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Sodium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 300.0 groundwater Nitrate as N 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Bicarbonate 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Carbonate 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2540 E groundwater Total Dissolved Solids 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Boron 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Calcium 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Magnesium 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Potassium 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Sodium 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2 groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Bicarbonate 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Carbonate 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Hydroxide 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

CALN SM 2540 C groundwater Total Dissolved Solids 37 0 0 37 100.0 37 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Boron 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Calcium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Magnesium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Potassium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Sodium 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 300.0 groundwater Nitrate as N 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

FGLE SM 2540 C v19 groundwater Total Dissolved Solids 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0

Totals 547 0 0 547 100.0 547 100.0


Table 48. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM field and transport completeness: field parameter counts and percentages. Samples sorted by sampling agency. Each analyte is sorted by sampling agency and method and in alphabetical order. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet 90% completeness requirement. SAMPLING


WELL SAMPLES

SCHEDULED SAMPLES COLLECTED

FIELD AND TRANSPORT

COMPLETENESS (%)

BSKL Not Reported groundwater Oxygen, Dissolved 3 0 0

BSKL Not Reported groundwater pH 3 0 0

BSKL Not Reported groundwater Specific Conductivity 3 0 0

BSKL Not Reported groundwater Water Temperature 3 0 0

FGLE Not Reported groundwater Oxygen, Dissolved 3 3 100.0

FGLE Not Reported groundwater pH 3 3 100.0

FGLE Not Reported groundwater Specific Conductivity 3 3 100.0

FGLE Not Reported groundwater Water Temperature 3 3 100.0

MLJD NA groundwater Oxidation-Reduction Potential1 37 37 100.0

MLJD SM 4500-O groundwater Oxygen, Dissolved 37 37 100.0

MLJD EPA 150.1 groundwater pH 37 37 100.0

MLJD EPA 120.1 groundwater Specific Conductivity 37 37 100.0

MLJD SM 2550 groundwater Water Temperature 37 37 100.0

MLJD EPA 180.1 groundwater Turbidity1 37 37 100.0

Total 246 234 95.1 1Oxidation-Reduction Potential and Turbidity measurements are optional.

Table 49. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM field QC batch completeness: total counts per analyte and completeness percentages. The environmental sample count does not include the field duplicate. Each analyte is sorted by method and in alphabetical order. Completeness for each analyte that resulted in less than 5% is bolded.

LAB


TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES

TOTAL

FIELD

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES

TOTAL

FIELD

BLANK

SAMPLES

TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

& FIELD QC

SAMPLES

FIELD

DUPLICATE

COMPLETENESS

(%)

FIELD BLANK

COMPLETENESS

(%)

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater Boron 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater Calcium 37 3 3 43 7.0

7.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater Magnesium 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater Potassium 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater Sodium 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN EPA 300.0

groundwater Chloride 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN EPA 300.0

groundwater Sulfate 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN EPA 353.2

groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N

37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3

37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Bicarbonate 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Carbonate 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Hydroxide 37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0

CALN SM 2540 C

groundwater Total Dissolved

Solids

37 3 3 43 7.0 7.0


LAB


TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES

TOTAL

FIELD

DUPLICATE

SAMPLES

TOTAL

FIELD

BLANK

SAMPLES

TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

& FIELD QC

SAMPLES

FIELD

DUPLICATE

COMPLETENESS

(%)

FIELD BLANK

COMPLETENESS

(%)

Total 481 39 39 559 6.98 6.98

Table 50. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of holding time evaluations for environmental, field blank, and field duplicate samples. Samples sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet the 90% acceptability requirement.

LAB

AGENCY METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE HOLD TIME

TOTAL

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

SAMPLES

ANALYZED WITHIN

HOLD TIME

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Boron 6 months 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Calcium 6 months 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Magnesium 6 months 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Potassium 6 months 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Sodium 6 months 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride 28 days 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate 28 days 43 43 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2 groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N 28 days 43 43 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 14 days 43 43 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Bicarbonate 14 days 43 43 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Carbonate 14 days 43 43 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B groundwater Hydroxide 14 days 43 43 100.0

CALN SM 2540 C groundwater Total Dissolved Solids 7 days 43 43 100.0

Total 559 559 100.0

Table 51. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of holding time evaluations for environmental samples for existing data. Samples sorted by lab agency, method, and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet the 90% acceptability requirement.

LAB


TOTAL

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

SAMPLES

ANALYZED WITHIN

HOLD TIME

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Boron 6 months 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Calcium 6 months 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Magnesium 6 months 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Potassium 6 months 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 200.7 groundwater Sodium 6 months 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride 28 days 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 300.0 groundwater Nitrate as N 48 hours 3 3 100.0

BSKL EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate 28 days 3 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 14 days 3 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Bicarbonate 14 days 3 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Carbonate 14 days 3 3 100.0

BSKL SM 2540 E groundwater Total Dissolved Solids 7 days 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Boron 6 months 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Calcium 6 months 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Magnesium 6 months 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Potassium 6 months 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 200.7 groundwater Sodium 6 months 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride 28 days 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 300.0 groundwater Nitrate as N 48 hours 3 3 100.0

FGLE EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate 28 days 3 3 100.0

FGLE SM 2320 B v18,19 groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 14 days 3 3 100.0

FGLE SM 2540 C v19 groundwater Total Dissolved Solids 7 days 3 3 100.0


LAB


TOTAL

SAMPLES

ANALYZED

SAMPLES

ANALYZED WITHIN

HOLD TIME

ACCEPTABILITY

MET (%)

Total 66 66 100.0

Table 52. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of field blank and field duplicate QC sample evaluations. Each analyte is sorted by method and analyte. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet 90% acceptability requirement.

LAB

AGENC

Y METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE SAMPLE

TYPE FB DATA ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

SAMPLE

S

SAMPLES

WITHIN

ACCEPTABILIT

Y

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater

Boron Field Blank

<RL or (environ. concentration/5)

3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater

Calcium Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater

Magnesium Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater

Potassium Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater

Sodium Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0

groundwater

Chloride Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0

groundwater

Sulfate Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2

groundwater


Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater

Alkalinity as CaCO3 Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater

Bicarbonate Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater

Carbonate Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater

Hydroxide Field Blank


3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2540 C

groundwater

Total Dissolved Solids

Field Blank


3 3 100.0

Total 39 39 100.0

CALN EPA

200.8 groundwat

er

Boron Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100

CALN EPA

200.8 groundwat

er

Calcium Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN EPA

200.8 groundwat

er

Magnesium Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN EPA

200.8 groundwat

er

Potassium Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN EPA

200.8 groundwat

er

Sodium Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN EPA

300.0 groundwat

er

Chloride Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0


LAB

AGENC

Y METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE SAMPLE

TYPE FB DATA ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

SAMPLE

S

SAMPLES

WITHIN

ACCEPTABILIT

Y

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

CALN EPA

300.0 groundwat

er

Sulfate Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN EPA

353.2 groundwat

er


Field Duplicat

e RPD ≤25

3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwat

er

Alkalinity as CaCO3 Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwat

er

Bicarbonate Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwat

er

Carbonate Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwat

er

Hydroxide Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

CALN SM 2540

C groundwat

er


Field Duplicat

e

RPD ≤25 3 3 100.0

Total 39 3 97.4

Table 53. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM summary of laboratory blank, laboratory control sample (LCS), laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD), matrix spike (MS), matrix spike duplicate (MSD), and laboratory duplicate QC sample evaluations. Samples sorted by method and analyte. Non project matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, and laboratory duplicates are included for batch Quality Assurance completeness purposes. Bolded rows represent analytes that did not meet 90% acceptability requirement.

LAB

AGENCY METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE SAMPLE TYPE

DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

SAMPLES

SAMPLES

WITHIN

LIMITS

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Boron Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Calcium Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Magnesium Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Potassium Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA

200.8 groundwater

Sodium Lab Blank < RL 4 3 75.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride Lab Blank < RL 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate Lab Blank < RL 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2 groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwater

Alkalinity as CaCO3 Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwater

Bicarbonate Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwater

Carbonate Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwater

Hydroxide Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2540

C groundwater


Lab Blank < RL 4 4 100.0

Total 58 57 98.3

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Boron LCS1 PR 75-125 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Calcium LCS1 PR 75-125 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Magnesium LCS1 PR 75-125 4 4 100.0


LAB

AGENCY METHOD MATRIX ANALYTE SAMPLE TYPE

DATA

ACCEPTABILITY

CRITERIA

TOTAL

SAMPLES

SAMPLES

WITHIN

LIMITS

ACCEPTABILIT

Y MET (%)

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Potassium LCS1 PR 75-125 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Sodium LCS1 PR 75-125 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride LCS1 PR 75-125 9 9 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate LCS1 PR 75-125 9 9 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2 groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N LCS1 PR 90-110 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwater

Alkalinity as CaCO3 LCS1 PR 75-125

4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320

B groundwater

Bicarbonate LCS1 PR 75-125

4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2540

C groundwater


LCS1 PR 80-120

4 4 100.0

Total 54 54 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride LCSD1 RPD ≤25 2 2 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate LCSD1 RPD ≤25 2 2 100.0

Total 4 4 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Boron MS1 75-125% 14 14 100

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Calcium MS1 75-125% 12 12 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Magnesium MS1 75-125% 14 14 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Potassium MS1 75-125% 14 14 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8

groundwater Sodium MS1 75-125% 12 8 66.7

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride MS1 75-125% 14 14 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate MS1 75-125% 14 14 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2

groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N

MS1 80-120% 12 8 66.7

Total 106 96 90.6

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Boron MSD1 RPD ≤25 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Calcium MSD1 RPD ≤25 6 6 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Magnesium MSD1 RPD ≤25 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Potassium MSD1 RPD ≤25 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 200.8 groundwater Sodium MSD1 RPD ≤25 6 6 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Chloride MSD1 RPD ≤25 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 300.0 groundwater Sulfate MSD1 RPD ≤25 7 7 100.0

CALN EPA 353.2 groundwater Nitrate + Nitrite as N MSD1 RPD ≤25 6 6 100.0

Total 53 53 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Alkalinity as CaCO3 Lab Duplicate

RPD ≤25 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Bicarbonate Lab Duplicate

RPD ≤25 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Carbonate Lab Duplicate

RPD ≤25 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2320 B

groundwater Hydroxide Lab Duplicate

RPD ≤25 4 4 100.0

CALN SM 2540 C

groundwater Total Dissolved Solids

Lab Duplicate

RPD ≤25 5 5 100.0

Total 21 21 100.0 1 LCS, LCSD, MS, and MSD are not run for all analytes and analytes that do not have these QC samples are not included in table.


DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

During 2018 GQTM results indicate detections of nitrate as N or nitrate + nitrate as N ranging from 0.51

to 24 mg/L (Table 54). Figure 15 indicates 2018 GQTM nitrate monitoring results for each

corresponding groundwater well in the GQTM network. Attachment B includes all results including well

information, habitat results, field results, and chemistry results including field and laboratory QC.

Results are loaded into Geo Tracker.

TIME CONCENTRATION FIGURES

Time concentration figures are not able to be generated until there is at least three years of monitoring

data.


Table 54. SJCDWQC 2018 GQTM Nitrate results. Groundwater monitoring results for nitrate as N or nitrate + nitrite as N (mg/L) collected and analyzed during 2018; sorted by field point name.

FIELD POINT

NAME

FIELD

POINT

CLASS

SAMPLE

DATE SAMPLE

TYPE REPLICATE MATRIX FRACTION UNIT ANALYTE RESULT

SJCDW00001 PRIW 10/23/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N 8.4

SJCDW00002 PUBW 11/14/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate as N 0.8



SJCDW00007 PRIW 10/25/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N 22




SJCDW00011 AGIR 10/25/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N 15












SJCDW00024 AGIR 11/13/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate as N 15














SJCDW00041 AGIR 10/22/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N 10








SJCDW00055 MW 11/7/2018 Grab 2 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N 5.9

SJCDW00055 MW 11/7/2018 Grab 1 groundwater Unfiltered mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N 5.7




Figure 15. 2018 GQTM nitrate results with corresponding groundwater well location.


COALITION ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS EXCEEDANCES OF WATER

QUALITY OBJECTIVES

The Coalition notifies members of all exceedances of WQTLs and works with growers to address water

quality impairments. Monitoring results are disseminated to Coalition members via grower mailings,

outreach meetings, and, in some cases, via personal communication. Appendix II includes copies of

mailings, meeting agendas and handouts; the Coalition provides all documents associated with outreach

upon request. The Coalition encourages its members to be aware of water quality concerns, and when

applicable, implement management practices designed to improve water quality.

Coalition actions taken to address exceedances of water quality objectives include 1) determining

potential sources of exceedances, 2) outreach, education, and collaboration between stakeholders

(including growers, RCDs, and irrigation districts) within the Coalition region, and 3) developing and

meeting Performance Goals and tracking schedules (described in the sections below).

2018 WY SUBMITTALS AND APPROVALS

Summary of Required WDR Submittals and Approvals

In order to address the fourth programmatic question, ‘Are irrigated agriculture operations of members

in compliance with the provisions of the Order?’, the Coalition tracks and assesses information gathered

from members. During the 2018 WY, Coalition members submitted Farm Evaluations (FEs) and

Nitrogen Management Plan (NMP) Summary Reports.

Exceedance Reports

All exceedances of WQTLs were reported to Regional Water Board staff via email within five business

days upon a sampling event or receipt of laboratory results. If any errors occurred in an original

Exceedance Report, an amended report was emailed to the Regional Water Board. During the 2018

WY, there were no amended Exceedance Reports submitted.

Quarterly Submittals

As required in Attachment B to the General Order R5-2014-0029-03, the Coalition submits the

Quarterly Monitoring Reports in an electronic format. Table 55 includes the Quarterly Monitoring

Report submittal schedule. Each Quarterly Monitoring Report included the following data for sampling

that occurred during the previous monitoring quarter:

8. An excel workbook containing exported data that was uploaded into the California Environmental

Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) comparable database,

9. The most recent eQAPP,

10. Electronic pdf copies of all field sheets,

11. Electronic submittal of site photos labeled with CEDEN comparable station codes and dates, and

12. Electronic pdf copies of all laboratory analytical reports including:

a) Quality Control Reports including all QC samples and narratives describing QC failures,

analytical errors, and anomalous occurrences,


b) Laboratory Analytical Reports including units, RLs, MDLs, sample preparation, extraction, and

analysis dates,

c) Chain of Custody (COCs) forms, and

d) Toxicity Reports with raw data including copies of the original bench sheets.

Table 55. SJCDWQC Quarterly Monitoring Report Submittal Schedule. QUARTERLY SUBMITTAL DUE DATES REPORTING PERIOD

March 1 July 1 through September 30 of previous calendar year

June 1 October 1 through December 31 of previous calendar year

September 1 January 1 through March 31 of same calendar year

December 1 April 1 through June 30 of same calendar year

All field data sheets, site photos, laboratory reports, and COCs were submitted quarterly for monitoring

that occurred during the 2018 WY. If any discrepancies between the COCs and sample delivery

occurred, each item was resolved and documented either directly on the COC or on an anomaly form

completed by the laboratory. In the 2018 WY, there were no COC discrepancies.

Sample collection and field delivery were performed according to the SJCWQC QAPP (approved April

12, 2017). All COC forms were faxed by the laboratories to Michael L. Johnson, LLC (MLJ

Environmental) after samples were received. As such, the COCs are complete and accurate records of

sample handling and processing, and they reflect the timing of sample collection as well as delivery to

the laboratories.

SUMMARY OF OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND COLLABORATION

ACTIVITIES

Outreach and education activities including member mailings, meetings, and collaboration activities are

an integral part of the Coalition’s monitoring and reporting program. The Coalition provides

information to growers through mailings, grower meetings, workshops, and County Agricultural

Commissioner’s meetings.

During the 2018 WY, the Coalition held meetings to inform members of progress in achieving water

quality goals, site subwatershed-specific monitoring results, and management practices effective at

reducing agricultural runoff to waterbodies. Outreach and education activities from the 2018 WY are

included in Table 56.

The Coalition also manages a website which serves as a clearing house for information on Coalition

activities and outreach (http://www.sjdeltawatershed.org). Information provided through the website

can supplement regular grower contacts and meetings. On the Coalition’s website, interested entities

can find information on Farm Evaluations, Nitrogen Management Plans, Sediment and Erosion Control

Plans, monitoring results and current management plans, Best Management Practices (BMPs), upcoming

grower workshops and meetings, and the ILRP.

http://www.sjdeltawatershed.org/


Table 56. SJCDWQC 2018 outreach and education activities. AREA DATE CATEGORY DETAILS WHO

Stockton 2/22/2018 BMP Outreach and Education

Spray Safe Grower Meeting: Meeting topics included management practices and water quality, applicable laws

and regulations, and new technologies.

San Joaquin Farm Bureau

SJCDWQC 11/1/2017 Grower

Meetings

Online Video: In place of attending Annual Grower Meetings, members can watch online video in place of

meeting attendance. Coalition Staff

SJCDWQC 1/17/2018, 1/19/2018, 2/21/2018

Grower Meetings

SJCDWQC Annual Growers Meetings: ~176 members attended between all meetings. Classes put on by Coalition

staff. Information for growers who are operating and making management decision of farming operation.

Coalition Staff

East Orwood Tract, Empire Tract, Staten

Island

3/16/2018 BMP Outreach and Education

2018 Focused Outreach: Initial contact surveys mailed to all targeted growers.

Coalition Staff

East Orwood Tract, Empire Tract, Staten

Island


2018 Focused Outreach Meeting: Focused Outreach meeting to discuss recent water quality impairments and

management practices.

Mike Wackman,

Terry Pritchard

Duck Creek, Mormon

Slough, Union Island


2017 Focused Outreach: Follow up surveys mailed to all growers who indicated they planned to implement new

management practices. Coalition Staff

San Joaquin County

11/14/2017, 11/21/2017, 11/30/2017, 12/5/2017,

12/12/2017, 12/14/2017

Grower Meetings

SJ County Ag Commissioner Pesticide Use Certification Meetings: ~852 members attended between all meetings. Members can attend these meetings to receive credit for

required annual grower meetings.

SJ County Ag Commissioner


SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIVITIES AND

PERFORMANCE GOALS

The Coalition conducts activities designed to improve surface water quality in site subwatersheds

with management plans. These activities began with the approval of the original SJCDWQC

Management Plan (approved on January 23, 2009) and are intended to continue to monitor and

analyze the water and sediment quality of SJCDWQC site subwatersheds and to facilitate the

implementation of management practices by providing outreach and support to growers in order

to effectively enhance water quality in the Coalition region.

The Coalition’s Performance Goals in the Revised SQMP (pages 68 through 72; approved

November 24, 2015), describe the steps necessary to guarantee that the objectives of the

Management Plan program are met and that water quality improves in the Coalition region. The

Performance Goals are:

1. Identify members with the potential to discharge to surface waters causing exceedances of

WQTLs of constituents identified in the Order.

2. Review the member’s FE Plan from the year prior to initiation of Management Plan activities

(focused outreach and monitoring) to determine the number/type of management practices

currently in place and determine if additional practices are necessary.

3. Hold grower group meetings to inform members of water quality impairments and

management practices to address impairments as necessary.

4. Review the member’s FE Plan from the year following initiation of Management Plan

activities to document the number/type of new management practices implemented.

5. Evaluate the effectiveness of new management practices using water quality data.

The Performance Goals describe the steps necessary to guarantee the objectives of the Coalition’s

SQMP are met and water quality improves. During the 2018 WY, the Coalition conducted

management plan activities in the 2017 and 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds. The

following sections describe actions taken during the 2018 WY to meet the Performance Goals and

Measures for sites where Focused Outreach was scheduled (Tables 57 through 59).

Summary of Focused Outreach Activities in the 2018 WY

During the 2018 WY, the Coalition completed Focused Outreach in the 2017 Focused Outreach

site subwatersheds and 100% of follow-up surveys were returned. Results from those surveys are

reported below in the ‘Management Practices’ section. The Coalition also conducted group

meetings with growers in the 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds and identified growers

for 2019 Focused Outreach. The following sections describe 1) Coalition actions to meet the

approved Performance Goals, 2) the status of each of the Performance Goals, and 3) the

associated measure/outputs for 2017 through 2019 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds.

The 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds (2017-2019) include Duck Creek @ Hwy 4,

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, and Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd.


The 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds (2018–2020) include East Orwood Tract Drain,

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd.

The 2019 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds (2019–2021) include Drain @ Woodbridge Rd,

Rindge Tract Drain, Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, South McDonald Island Pump, and Upper

Roberts Island Drain.

Performance Goal 1 Identify members with the potential to discharge to surface waters causing exceedances of WQTLs of management plan constituents.

As part of Focused Outreach, the Coalition identifies site subwatersheds with recent exceedances

and upcoming 10-year management plan completion deadlines. The Coalition evaluates PUR data

associated with recent exceedances as well as member parcel information to identify members for

Focused Outreach. When the targeted member list is compiled, site subwatershed group

meetings are scheduled. Contact letters are then mailed to inform targeted growers of

membership responsibilities, water quality impairments, management plan strategies, and to

encourage growers to attend site subwatershed group meetings with Coalition representatives.

During Focused Outreach meetings, representatives assist growers with their surveys and review

management practices effective in reducing offsite movement of pesticides.

2017 Focused Outreach

The Coalition contacted 100% of targeted members in the Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 (4 growers),

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd (7 growers), and Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd (7 growers) site

subwatersheds. There were previously five targeted growers in the Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 site

subwatershed, but one grower dropped out of active membership status. Initial contact letters

were mailed to growers on May 22 and 23, 2017, informing them of the site subwatershed group

meeting date of June 12, 2017 for all three 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds (Table

57).


The Coalition contacted 100% of targeted members in the East Orwood Tract Drain (3 growers),

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd (7 growers), and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd (1 grower) site

subwatersheds. Initial contact letters were mailed to growers on May 16, 2018, informing them of

the site subwatershed group meeting date of April 12, 2018 for all three 2018 Focused Outreach

site subwatersheds (Table 58).

Performance Goal 2

Review the member’s FE survey from the year prior to initiation of Management Plan activities

to determine number/type of management practices currently in place and determine if

additional practices are necessary.


As part of focused outreach, FE surveys are used to determine current management practices.

Members may be contacted for outreach and meetings with Coalition representatives based on

their FE results or for lack of FE submittal.

Farm Evaluation results were considered when developing targeted grower lists for the 2017

through 2019 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds.

Performance Goal 3

Hold meetings as necessary to inform members of water quality impairments and recommend

additional practices.

During all grower meetings, Coalition representatives discuss local water quality concerns and

inform growers of management practices effective at reducing water quality impairments. To

address water quality impairments, the Coalition is particularly focused on three main issues, 1)

irrigation water management/storm drainage, 2) erosion and sediment management, and 3) pest

management/dormant sprays.


The 2017 Focused Outreach meeting was held on June 12, 2017 for growers in the Duck Creek @

Hwy 4, Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, and Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd site subwatersheds.

Of the 17 targeted growers, eight attended the meeting and completed their surveys. The

Coalition contacted all growers who did not attend the June 12, 2017 meeting and 100% of 2017

Focused Outreach surveys were completed. An analysis including implemented management

practices is included in the ‘Management Practices’ section in the 2019 Annual Report.


The 2018 Focused Outreach meeting was held on April 12, 2018 for growers in the East Orwood

Tract Drain, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd site

subwatersheds. Of the 11 targeted growers, three attended the meeting and completed their

surveys. The Coalition contacted all growers who did not attend the April 12, 2018 meeting and

100% of 2018 Focused Outreach surveys were completed and entered into the database.

Discussions with targeted growers at the meeting included recurring water quality impairments

and management practices effective at improving water quality.

Performance Goal 4 Review the member’s FE survey from the year following initiation of Management Plan activities to document number/type of new management practices implemented.

Management practices implemented by members and reported on the FE surveys are stored in a

relational database. The Coalition follows up with targeted growers the year after Focused

Outreach group meetings via follow-up postcards and phone calls to obtain the most up-to-date

details/responses on implemented practices.



The Coalition followed up with two targeted growers that planned to implement new

management practices to confirm if those practices were implemented in 2018. A full analysis of

newly implemented management practices is located in the ‘Management Practices’ section.


During the 2019 WY, the Coalition will send follow-up surveys to six targeted growers that

planned to implement new management practices to confirm if those practices were implemented.

Performance Goal 5 Evaluate effectiveness of new management practices.

The Coalition conducts MPM for three years in site subwatersheds undergoing Focused Outreach

and assesses water quality improvements. After three years of monitoring with no exceedances,

the Coalition can petition to the Regional Water Board for management plan completion.


The Coalition conducted MPM at all 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds during the 2018

WY and will continue MPM through the 2019 WY to assess changes in water quality and the

efficacy of newly implemented management practices. Monitoring results from MPM during the

2018 WY are reported in the ‘Status of Management Plans’ section of this report.


The Coalition conducted MPM at all 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds during the 2018

WY and will continue MPM through the 2020 WY to assess changes in water quality and the

efficacy of newly implemented management practices. Monitoring results from MPM during the

2018 WY are reported in the ‘Status of Management Plans’ section of this report.

Planned Focused Outreach Activities for the 2019 WY

For 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds, the Coalition will follow up with targeted

growers to determine if/what management practices were implemented in 2018. The final

analysis will be reported in the 2020 Annual Report. Table 58 below includes the 2018 Focused

Outreach Performance Goals and Measures.

The Coalition will mail initial surveys to targeted growers in the 2019 Focused Outreach site

subwatersheds on in 2019. The Coalition contacted targeted growers and conducted a group

meeting on April 12, 2018 with members in Bacon Island Pump @ Old River (1 grower), Drain @

Woodbridge Rd (4 growers), Rindge Tract Drain (6 growers), South McDonald Island Pump (4

growers), and Upper Roberts Island Drain (3 growers). Table 59 below includes the 2019 Focused

Outreach Performance Goals and Measures.


Table 57. Performance Goals status for 2017–2019 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds (Duck Creek @ Hwy 4, Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, and Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd). NA – Not applicable.

PERFORMANCE

GOAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE OUTPUTS WHO

ANNUAL REPORT YEAR

2017 2018 2019

1

Performance Measure 1.1. – Perform source analysis, when possible, of constituents causing exceedances of

WQTLs.

Identification of members with the potential to discharge to surface waters and cause the

observed exceedance. MLJ Environmental Complete

Performance Measure 1.2. – Identify 100% of all members that had the potential to discharge agricultural wastes to surface waters causing

exceedances of WQTLs.

Report in Management Plan Progress Report the acreage represented by members with the

potential for direct discharge. MLJ Environmental Complete

2

Performance Measure 2.1 – Review FE (or NMP or SECP as appropriate) from 100% of targeted

members.

Received management practices recorded in Access database.

MLJ Environmental Complete

Performance Measure 2.2 – Identify management practices used by members that are effective in

preventing discharges to surface water.

Record of management practices in place that reduce agricultural impact on water quality.

SJCDWQC and MLJ Environmental

Complete

Performance Measure 2.3 – Identify management practices not currently used by members that can be

recommended to prevent discharges to surface water.

Summary in the Management Plan Progress Report of management practices recommended

to members.


Complete

3

Performance Measure 3.1 – Provide monitoring results at meetings with members and discuss

practices that can be used to eliminate exceedances.

Agendas and/or reports of all meetings with members.


Complete

Performance Measure 3.2 – When available and appropriate, provide information on the results of the

management practices studies. Provide reports from studies. SJCDWQC NA

Performance Measure 3.3 - Track attendance at meetings attended by the targeted members.

Report of members attending meetings provided in Management Plan Progress Report.


Complete

4 Performance Measure 4.1 – Document management

practice implementation, if needed, by targeted members.

Summary in the ‘Management Practices’ section of management practices implemented by

members at site subwatershed level. MLJ Environmental Complete

5 Performance Measure 5.1 – Monitoring at sites with exceedances after implementation of management

practices to evaluate effectiveness.

MPM results in ‘Status of Management Plans’ section.

MLJ Environmental In

Progress


Table 58. Performance Goals status for 2018–2020 focused outreach site subwatersheds (East Orwood Tract Drain, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd). NA – Not applicable. X – planned to occur in marked year.

PERFORMANCE


ANNUAL REPORT YEAR

2018 2019 2020

1

Performance Measure 1.1. – Perform source analysis, when possible, of constituents causing exceedances of WQTLs.

Identification of members with the potential to discharge to surface waters

and cause the observed exceedance. MLJ Environmental Complete

Performance Measure 1.2. – Identify 100% of all members that had the potential to discharge agricultural wastes to

surface waters causing exceedances of WQTLs.

Report in Management Plan Progress Report the acreage represented by

members with the potential for direct discharge.


2

Performance Measure 2.1 – Review FE (or NMP or SECP as appropriate) from 100% of targeted members.



Performance Measure 2.2 – Identify management practices used by members that are effective in preventing discharges

to surface water.

Record of management practices in place that reduce agricultural impact on water

quality.


Complete

Performance Measure 2.3 – Identify management practices not currently used by members that can be recommended to

prevent discharges to surface water.

Summary in the Management Plan Progress Report of management practices

recommended to members.


In

Progress

3

Performance Measure 3.1 – Provide monitoring results at meetings with members and discuss practices that can be

used to eliminate exceedances.



Complete

Performance Measure 3.2 – When available and appropriate, provide information on the results of the management

practices studies. Provide reports from studies. SJCDWQC NA


Report of members attending meetings provided in Management Plan Progress

Report.


Complete

4 Performance Measure 4.1 – Document management

practice implementation, if needed, by targeted members.

Summary in the ‘Management Practices’ section of management practices implemented by members at site

subwatershed level.

MLJ Environmental X

5 Performance Measure 5.1 – Monitoring at sites with

exceedances after implementation of management practices to evaluate effectiveness.

MPM results in ‘Status of Management Plans’ section.

MLJ Environmental In

Progress


Table 59. Performance Goals status for 2019–2021 focused outreach site subwatersheds (Drain @ Woodbridge Rd, Rindge Tract Drain, Bacon Island Pump @ Old River, South McDonald Island Pump, and Upper Roberts Island Drain). NA – Not applicable.

PERFORMANCE


ANNUAL REPORT YEAR

2019 2020 2021

1

Performance Measure 1.1. – Perform source analysis, when possible, of constituents causing


Identification of members with the potential to discharge to surface waters and cause the

observed exceedance. MLJ Environmental Complete

Performance Measure 1.2. – Identify 100% of all members that had the potential to discharge agricultural wastes to surface waters causing


Report in Management Plan Progress Report the acreage represented by members with the

potential for direct discharge. MLJ Environmental Complete

2

Performance Measure 2.1 – Review FE (or NMP or SECP as appropriate) from 100% of targeted

members.



Performance Measure 2.2 – Identify management practices used by members that are effective in

preventing discharges to surface water.

Record of management practices in place that reduce agricultural impact on water quality.


In Progress

Performance Measure 2.3 – Identify management practices not currently used by members that can be recommended to prevent discharges to surface

water.

Summary in the Management Plan Progress Report of management practices recommended to

members.


3

Performance Measure 3.1 – Provide monitoring results at meetings with members and discuss

practices that can be used to eliminate exceedances.



Performance Measure 3.2 – When available and appropriate, provide information on the results of

the management practices studies. Provide reports from studies. SJCDWQC NA


Report of members attending meetings provided in Management Plan Progress Report.


4 Performance Measure 4.1 – Document

management practice implementation, if needed, by targeted members.

Summary in the Management Plan Progress Report of management practices implemented by

members at site subwatershed level. MLJ Environmental

5 Performance Measure 5.1 – Monitoring at sites

with exceedances after implementation of management practices to evaluate effectiveness.

MPM results in Monitoring Plan Progress Report. MLJ Environmental


GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIVITIES AND

PERFORMANCE GOALS

Groundwater Quality Management Plan

The Coalition’s GQMP was conditionally approved on January 16, 2018 and the GQMP

Addendum was submitted February 15, 2018 (approval pending).

The purpose of the GQMP is to develop a strategy for eliminating/reducing impairments to

Beneficial Uses (BUs) of groundwater due to agricultural practices. The Coalition’s GQMP

strategy is based on the GAR and GAR updates, MPEP, the Nitrogen Management Plan Technical

Advisory Work Group (NMP TAWG) efforts, grower management practice and land use

documentation, and current, publicly available groundwater quality monitoring data, i.e. GQTM

monitoring data, water quality data from Geotracker GAMA, and well sampling annual reports

from DPR.

The GQMP approach involves the following processes:

• Annual review of most recent, publicly available groundwater quality data (listed above)

to verify the water quality is improved,

• Identifying potential sources of discharges that impair BUs (FEs),

• Tracking amount of nitrogen applied (A) versus amount of nitrogen in crop yield (Y) to

determine management practices that are statistical outliers,

• Providing education and outreach concerning additional management practices to be

implemented that are protective groundwater quality (associated with the 4Rs) and

focused outreach to those growers employing management practices that are statistical

outliers, and

• Tracking management practice implementation by growers.

The Coalition will evaluate the effectiveness of the GQMP strategy by:

• Identifying management practices that are potentially enabling constituents to impair groundwater quality,

• Understanding what practices those growers currently have in place, • Providing information on additional practices if appropriate, • Verifying that additional practices are being implemented, and • Monitoring A/Y (or A/R) and water quality to determine if nitrate concentrations in

groundwater are being reduced to acceptable levels below the MCL.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EVALUATION PROGRAM The goal of the MPEP is to identify whether existing site-specific and/or commodity-specific

agricultural management practices are protective of groundwater quality. Six northern Central

Valley third-party groups formed the MPEP Group Coordination Committee (MPEP GCC) to

jointly conduct MPEP studies in the Central Valley. The participating coalitions include the East


San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition (ESJWQC), Grassland Drainage Area Coalition (GDA),

Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition (SVWQC), San Joaquin County and Delta Water

Quality Coalition (SJCDWQC), Westlands Water Quality Coalition (WWQC), and the Westside

San Joaquin River Watershed Coalition (WSJRWC).

The MPEP GCC submitted a MPEP Work Plan on July 29, 2016, and revised Work Plans on May

18, 2017, February 15, 2018, and December 3, 2018. The objectives of the MPEP, as stated in the

WDR for each Coalition are:

1. Determine the crop-specific coefficients for conversion of a measured crop yield to

nitrogen removed.

2. Determine acceptable ranges for the multi-year A/R ratios by crop.

3. Identify whether existing site-specific and/or commodity specific management practices

are protective of groundwater quality.

4. Determine if newly implemented management practices are improving or may result in

improving groundwater quality,

5. Develop an estimate of the effect of the Members’ discharges of constituents of concern

on groundwater quality.

6. Utilize the results of evaluated management practices to improve the practices

implemented on Member farms (not specifically evaluated, but having similar site

conditions).

The MPEP GCC Work Plan proposes a three-phase approach which compliments and integrates

the efforts of the Southern San Joaquin Valley MPEP (SSJV MPEP). The three phases of the MPEP

GCC Work Plan include a literature review on practices known to be protective of groundwater

under some conditions (completed in November 2017), landscape-level modeling and evaluation

of management practices using the Surface Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), and an evaluation of

the impacts of management practices on groundwater quality. A final Management Practice

Evaluation Report is to be submitted to the Regional Water Board on May 1, 2023.

Actions taken for the MPEP during the 2018 WY included:

• Completion of the Work Plan revision to incorporate additional objectives inserted into the MPEP by the State Board (submission in December 2018, for the 2019 WY)

• Continued coordination with the SSJV MPEP group to insure SWAT modeling runs meet the needs of the MPEP GCC coalitions

• Review of crops needing better estimates of N-removed coefficients • Completion of the crop prioritization analysis • Update, finalize, and incorporate the management practices literature review into the

MPEP GCC Work Plan

Work Plan Revision

The MPEP GCC submitted a revised Work Plan to the Regional Water Board staff in February

2018. The MPEP GCC received conditional approval from the Regional Water Board in August

2018 with a request to update the Work Plan by December 1, 2018 to incorporate additional

elements inserted into the MPEP by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State

Water Board) in their ESJWQC WDR revision. This revision was initiated during the 2018 WY


and continued into the 2019 WY with the revised Work Plan being submitted on December 3,

2018 (the first business day after December 1).

Coordination with the SSJV MPEP

As the SSJV MPEP group continued to refine and customize the SWAT model for the Central

Valley, the MPEP GCC coalitions provided additional nitrogen removed and management practice

data to the SSJV MPEP to parameterize the model. These data were incorporated into the model

during the 2018 WY and initial model runs for the MPEP GCC region were performed early in the

2019 WY.

Four different modeling runs are completed and will be made available for use by the north by late

summer 2019: farming operations well managed for both irrigation and nitrogen applications,

operations well managed for irrigation but poorly managed for nitrogen applications, operations

poorly managed for irrigation but well managed for nitrogen applications, and operations poorly

managed for both irrigation and nitrogen applications.

N-Removed Coefficients

One of the new objectives imposed on the MPEP by the State Water Board is a determination of

when all N-removed coefficients would be developed, and the method by which those coefficients

would be developed. Dr. Daniel Geisseler, from UC Davis, performed a literature review in 2016

of available coefficients to develop an initial set of coefficients with an evaluation of their

certainty. Certainty was based on a subjective review of factors such as the location where the

study took place, date of the study, crop variety (if appropriate), and study methods.

Dr. Geisseler is updating his review and the SSJV MPEP is using funds from CDFA to develop N-

removed coefficients for several minor acreage crops. The SSJV MPEP is developing a study

protocol that can be used for measuring the nitrogen content of additional crops if necessary.

The MPEP GCC reviewed the available N-removed coefficients and determined the suite of

coefficients is adequate to calculate the amount of N removed from agricultural operations with

yield. Outlier status is determined by the Interquartile Range method which involves an

assessment of the variability in A/R values. If N-removed coefficients change, it will not impact the

outlier calculations. Because all values of A/R are compared among parcels growing the same crop

type, lowering or raising the N-removed coefficient changes all estimates of A/R equally and does

not change outlier status.

Crop Prioritization

The MPEP GCC incorporated the crop prioritization memo into the revised Work Plan.

The purpose of the crop prioritization memo was to identify the crops that would be the focus of

the MPEP GCC. This focus involved identifying practices that reduce leaching in high priority

crops and provide a large reduction in leaching of nitrogen across the MPEP GCC region.

The natural choice to provide the largest reduction in leaching across the largest number of acres

is to select those crops that have the highest acreage in the region as the highest priority for the


MPEP. However, this approach ignores the potential that a lower acreage crop has a larger

nitrogen application rate, lower yields, and consequently a disproportionately large impact on

nitrogen leaching. The crop prioritization exercise is the MPEP GCC’s analysis to determine which

crops have the greatest potential to contribute to nitrogen leaching in the region.

The NMP Summary Report N-applied and N-removed data were used to perform the analysis.

Results indicated a significant correlation between acreage and N leaching potential. Although

the correlation is not perfect, it is sufficiently strong that using crop acreage as the determinant of

leaching threat is reasonable.

Literature Review

In the original MPEP GCC Work Plan, there was a reference to a review of the management

practice literature with the statement that the literature review was available upon request. In

the conditional approval, the Regional Water Board requested that the literature review be

included in the revision. The literature review was incorporated into the Work Plan as an

appendix.

Additional MPEP Reporting Requirements

Attachment B to the SJCDWQC General Order R5-2014-0029-03 requires that the MPEP report

contain tabulated data collected by the MPEP GCC including A/R and A-R data. It also requires

that “the third-party evaluate the data and make a determination whether groundwater is being

impacted by activities at farms being monitored by the MPEP.”

The MPEP GCC does not collect any A/R or A-R data. Those data are collected by each individual

third-party coalition as part of the required information provided by each Coalition’s members on

their NMP Summary Reports. Each third-party coalition reports those data to the Regional Water

Board according to the submission dates listed in their General Orders.

No MPEP activities are underway on any farm in the MPEP GCC region. As a result, it is not

possible to determine if groundwater is being impacted. The SWAT modeling is being completed

for the entire region which will allow an evaluation of the efficacy of management practices on

specific parcels.

The SWAT results have only recently been developed and are not yet available to the MPEP.

When they become available, the MPEP will report those results as well as the potential impacts

on groundwater.

MPEP Progress

The MPEP GCC is reliant on the SSJV MPEP to develop and refine the SWAT model so that it can

be used to determine if management practices are effective in preventing leaching of nitrogen to

groundwater. The SSJV MPEP is faced with significant challenges in customizing the model to run

correctly for the Central Valley. Numerous crop models need to be modified, data obtained for

parameterization, and the model calibrated for the entire Central Valley. Due to computational

difficulties, the Valley is divided into three domains; the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley,


and the Tulare Lake Basin portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The challenge in running, calibrating,

and validating the models is not trivial and has taken the SSJV MPEP an additional year to get the

model to a point where it can be used effectively in the Central Valley.

The MPEP GCC expects to obtain the model and initial model results within the next few months,

and initiate additional analyses to determine the effectiveness of specific management practices

on the leaching of N past the root zone. The MPEP GCC expects to make up time over the next

two years and be on schedule to complete the initial phases of the MPEP by the 2023 required

submission of the Management Practices Evaluation Report.


MEMBER ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS EXCEEDANCES OF

WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Each year, Coalition members are responsible for completing multiple surveys on farm

management practices, sediment and erosion control practices, and nitrogen use. Each member is

required to attend an annual grower meeting and pay annual membership dues. Growers who are

selected for Focused Outreach must complete annual reporting requirements in addition to

attending grower group meetings with Coalition representatives to fill out surveys and discuss

management practices.

In addition to completing and returning surveys, growers in high vulnerability areas are required

to have their NMP Worksheets and Sediment Erosion Control Plans (SECPs) certified by industry

professionals. To assist growers with certifying their on-farm documents, the Coalition

collaborated with the Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship (CURES) and UC

Cooperative Extension (UCCE) staff to develop self-certification courses for self-certifying NMP

Worksheets and SECPs.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The Coalition provides growers with information through mailings and meetings about various

management practices that are designed to 1) reduce stormwater runoff and manage discharge of

irrigation tailwater, 2) manage spray applications, and 3) prevent mobilization and transport of

sediment to receiving waterbodies. During the 2018 WY, growers were also provided information

regarding nutrient management and sediment and erosion control practices.

The Coalition has conducted focused outreach in site subwatersheds since 2008. The purpose of

focused outreach is to:

• Review water quality concerns and document current management practices • Record new management practices growers plan to implement • Document implemented practices following focused outreach

The Coalition followed the 2015 SQMP strategy for the 2018 Focused Outreach site

subwatersheds and will continue to follow this strategy for all other outreach activities moving

forward.

Below is a list of management practices growers can implement to reduce or eliminate discharges

and improve water quality:

1. Reduce use of pesticide(s)

2. Use of drip or micro irrigation system

3. Install irrigation recirculation system, retention pond, and/or holding basin

4. Use cover crops

5. Use vegetative filter strips or ditches

6. Use polyacrylamide (PAM) with furrow irrigation systems


7. Redesign inlets and outlets into tailwater ditches to reduce erosion

Several factors could be responsible for repeated water quality impairments in site

subwatersheds where Focused Outreach previously occurred including:

• Changes in land ownership resulting in a grower new to the area who may not have been contacted previously for outreach,

• New lease agreements where an individual who farms a member’s parcels may not have received focused outreach in the past,

• Changes in the crops resulting in inadequate management practice implementation, and • Discharge from non-Coalition growers.

2017 Focused Outreach Summary of Management Practices (2017-2019)

The 2017 Focused Outreach in the site subwatersheds include Duck Creek @ Hwy 4, Mormon

Slough @ Jack Tone Rd, and Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd. Initial focused outreach surveys

were completed for 100% of targeted growers in 2017 and follow-ups were completed for 100%

of targeted growers in 2018.

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4

Management practices were documented for 100% of the targeted acreage. On May 31, 2018, a

follow-up postcard was sent to a single targeted grower farming 38 acres in the Duck Creek @

Hwy 4 site subwatershed (Table 60). The analysis below includes follow-up results.

Table 60. Tally of members targeted for 2017 Focused Outreach in the Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 site subwatershed (2017-2019). FOCUSED OUTREACH ACTIONS DUCK CREEK @ HWY 4

Targeted Growers 4*

Attended Meeting 4

Follow-up Contacts Required (new management practices planned to be implemented)

1

Completed Follow-up Contact 1

Growers with Newly Implemented Practices 0

Percent Complete (Initial Contact) 100%

Percent Complete (Follow-up Contact) 100% *There were initially five targeted growers, but one dropped out of active membership status.

Summary of Implemented Management Practices

One grower farming 38 acres intended to install an irrigation recirculation system or retention

pond, but the grower reported that they could not implement this practice because their

application for financial assistance was declined. In the 2017 & 2018WYs, there were no

exceedances of chlorpyrifos at Duck Creek @ Hwy 4. The site subwatershed is currently in a

management plan for chlorpyrifos.

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd


follow-up survey postcard was sent to one targeted grower farming 532 acres in the site

subwatershed (Table 61). The analysis below includes follow-up results.


Table 61. Tally of members targeted for 2017 Focused Outreach in the Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd site subwatershed (2017-2019). FOCUSED OUTREACH ACTIONS MORMON SLOUGH @ JACK TONE RD

Targeted Growers 7

Attended Meeting 7


1

Completed Follow-up Contact 1

Growers with Newly Implemented Practices 1


Percent Complete (Follow-up Contact) 100%

Summary of Implemented Management Practices

Table 62 provides a summary of implemented management practices in the site subwatershed

after 2017 Focused Outreach. In the 2017 & 2018WYs, there were no exceedances of

chlorpyrifos at Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd. The site subwatershed is currently in a

management plan for chlorpyrifos.

Table 62. Acreages of newly implemented management practices in the Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatershed (2017-2019).

IMPLEMENTED MANAGEMENT

PRACTICE # GROWERS ACREAGE

Use vegetative filter strips or ditches 1 532



follow-up survey postcard was sent to one grower farming 650 acres in the site subwatershed

(Table 63). However, the member had sold their property and was removed from focused

outreach.

Table 63. Tally of members who participated in focused outreach in the Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd 2017 Focused Outreach site subwatershed (2017-2019). FOCUSED OUTREACH ACTIONS TERMINOUS TRACT DRAIN @ HWY 12

Targeted Growers 6*

Attended Meeting 6


0


Percent Complete (Follow-up Contact) 100% *There were initially seven targeted growers, but one sold their property.

2018 Focused Outreach Summary of Management Practices (2018-2020)

The 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds include East Orwood Tract Drain, Empire Tract

@ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd. Growers in these three site

subwatersheds have not received any previous focused outreach.


The Coalition targeted 11 growers in the 2018 Focused Outreach site subwatersheds: East

Orwood Tract Drain (3), Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd (7), and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd

(1). The Coalition reviewed 2016 FEs for targeted growers, if available, to document current

management practices. Two 11 growers were automatically targeted because they had not

returned their 2016 FEs. On March 16, 2018, the Coalition mailed initial surveys to all targeted

growers in order to confirm current management practices for 2018.

The Coalition conducted the 2018 Focused Outreach meeting on April 12, 2018 for all targeted

growers in the three site subwatersheds. During the meeting, current and planned management

practices were documented on the surveys. One hundred percent of the 2018 Focused Outreach

surveys were returned to the Coalition (Table 64). Six growers indicated they would implement

additional management practices by the end of 2018. The Coalition will mail out follow-up

surveys in 2019 to confirm if these six growers implemented new management practices.

Table 64. Tally of members who participated in 2018 Focused Outreach and require follow-ups.

FOCUSED OUTREACH ACTIONS EAST ORWOOD TRACT DRAIN EMPIRE TRACT @ 8 MILE

RD STATEN ISLAND DRAIN @

STATEN ISLAND RD

Targeted Growers 3 7 1

Attended Meeting 0 2 1

Initial Surveys Returned 3 7 1

Follow-up Contacts Required 2 3 1

Percent Complete (Initial Contact) 100% 100% 100%


The Coalition contacted three growers farming 980 irrigated acres in the East Orwood Tract

Drain site subwatershed (Figure 16). The 2018 Focused Outreach surveys required growers to

indicate if they planned to implement new management practices in 2019 (planned management

practices). One grower farming 570 acres planned to use polyacrylamide (PAM) with furrow

irrigation systems. Another grower farming 369 acres planned to install an irrigation recirculation

system/retention pond/holding basin, redesign inlets and outlets into tailwater ditches, and

reduce the use of herbicides associated with algae toxicity (Table 65).

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd

The Coalition contacted seven targeted growers farming 2,108 irrigated acres in the site

subwatershed for 2018 Focused Outreach (Figure 17). The 2018 Focused Outreach surveys

require growers to indicate if they planned to implement new management practices (Planned

Management Practices). Three growers farming 811 total acres plan to reduce their use of

herbicides associated with algae toxicity (Table 65).


The Coalition contacted one targeted grower farming 8,416 irrigated acres in the site

subwatershed for 2018 Focused Outreach (Figure 18). The 2018 Focused Outreach surveys

require growers to indicate if they planned to implement new management practices (Planned

Management Practices). The targeted grower plans to implement four new management


practices: install an irrigation recirculation system/retention pond/holding basin, redesign inlets

and outlets into tailwater ditches, use cover crops, and use vegetative filter strips or ditches (Table

65).

Table 65. Planned management practices for targeted growers in East Orwood Tract Drain, Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd, and Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd.

SITE SUBWATERSHED PLANNED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GROWERS ACREAGE


Install irrigation recirculation system/retention pond/holding basin. 1 369

Use polyacrylamide (PAM) with furrow irrigation systems. 1 570

Redesign inlets and outlets into tailwater ditches to reduce erosion. 1 369

Reduce use of herbicides associated with algae toxicity. 1 369

Empire Tract Drain Reduce use of herbicides associated with algae toxicity 3 811


Install irrigation recirculation system/retention pond/holding basin 1 8,416

Redesign inlets and outlets into tailwater ditches to reduce erosion 1 8,416

Use cover crops 1 8,416

Use vegetative filter strips or ditches 1 8,416


Figure 16. East Orwood Tract Drain targeted vs. not targeted member parcels.


Figure 17. Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd targeted vs. not targeted member parcels.


Figure 18. Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd targeted vs. not targeted member parcels.


FARM EVALUATIONS

Members are required to complete their FEs based on whether enrolled parcels are in a high or

low vulnerability area (HVA or LVA). High vulnerability areas (HVAs) are the geographic regions

within the Coalition region where surface water quality management plans are in place or the area

has been identified in the GAR to be highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination.

Farm Evaluations for 2017 were required for members with: 1) parcels in surface and/or

groundwater HVAs, or 2) parcels in LVAs without prior survey data. Survey responses were

recorded in a Coalition-maintained relational database, stored, and managed on Amazon Web

Services (AWS). Results from the FEs have been linked to Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) and

acreage. The results were submitted to the Regional Water Board in an Access database (with the

May 1, 2019 Annual Report) and have been identified on Township-Range (T-R) levels, where the

T-Rs are assigned based on the centroid of each parcel. Data from the surveys are used to

evaluate changes in surface water quality relative to the implementation of management

practices.

The FEs are designed to collect information in four areas of interest:

• Part A: whole farm evaluation

• Part B: specific field evaluation

• Part C: irrigation well information

• Part D: sediment and erosion control practices

These four survey sections are designed to gather information from growers specific to both

surface and groundwater management practices including:

1. Identification of crops grown and the irrigated acreage of each crop

2. Geographical location of the member’s farm

3. Identification of on-farm management practices implemented to achieve the WDR farm

management performance standards

4. Identification of whether there is movement of soil during storm events and/or during

irrigation (sediment and erosion risk areas) and a description of where this occurs

5. Identification of whether water leaves the property and is conveyed downstream and a

description of where this occurs

6. Location of active irrigation wells and abandoned wells

7. Applied wellhead protection and backflow prevention practices and devices

The following actions were taken by SJCDWQC to assist members with completing their surveys

and encourage accurate data collection and reporting:

• The Coalition provided assistance via phone, drop-in workshops, and individual appointments at the SJCDWQC office to ensure survey accuracy.

• For members with pre-populated surveys, questions without responses from the prior year were highlighted and marked with an arrow.


• Members were contacted by phone or email for follow-up when priority questions were unanswered or responses were unclear; not all members could be contacted.

Data were reviewed to reduce errors. The review of data included a comparison of survey

acreages to enrollment acreages to ensure at least one response was recorded for every question

on the survey. While prepopulating surveys has aided growers with improving survey

completeness and accuracy from year to year, several areas were identified for improvement:

• Some parcels were new on the 2017 FE and it was unclear which responses applied to them. These surveys were marked for follow-up and as many members as possible were contacted to resolve these issues.

• Some parcels were non-agricultural but were not clearly marked as such on returned FEs. Enrollment data and GIS mapping were used to clarify land use when possible.

• In situations where members had multiple parcels with different fields and management practices, some members did not divide their APN acreage into each Site ID/Field ID. If acreage was not provided by the member and they could not be reached for clarification, the enrolled irrigated acreage was used.

• Many members did not provide crop information at the field level. If the crop type was not provided by the member, and they could not be reached for clarification, the available 2017 NMP Summary Report crop information was used.

SUMMARY

Farm Evaluations for the 2017 crop year were mailed to 2,837 members. A small percentage (4%)

of these members were not required to complete the survey due to one of the following reasons:

1) the member had no irrigated acreage enrolled in the Coalition during 2017, 2) the member did

not farm in 2017, or 3) the membership became inactive after the survey was mailed. Therefore,

only 2,728 surveys were required to be submitted. Of the required surveys, the Coalition received

surveys from 92% of members, representing 94% of the acreage (Table 66). The Coalition sent

two reminders for late surveys and is continually receiving late surveys from growers.

Figure 19 indicates the acreage associated with returned 2017 FEs. Of the APNs associated with

the returned FEs, 201 of 8,659 parcels could not be mapped. Reasons for the inability to map

include: 1) the parcel number was updated after the mapping layer was updated by the county, 2)

the member reported an old parcel number that no longer can be linked to an updated mapping

layer, or 3) the member reported an incorrect parcel number. These parcels are indicated as

“unknown” for vulnerability in Table 66.

Table 66. Summary of required 2017 FE acreage and memberships. SURVEY STATUS VULNERABILITY1 OVERALL VULNERABILITY SUM OF ACREAGE COUNT OF MEMBERS

Received2

Both SW and GW - High

High 132,911 572

GW - High High 126,382 1,428

SW - High High 7,174 64

Both SW and GW - Low Low 134,368 447

Unknown Unknown 9 1

Received Total 400,844 2,512


SURVEY STATUS VULNERABILITY1 OVERALL VULNERABILITY SUM OF ACREAGE COUNT OF MEMBERS

Not Received

Both SW and GW - High

High 4,064 33

GW - High High 3,685 73

SW - High High 5,221 32

Both SW and GW - Low Low 12,175 76

Unknown Unknown 606 2

Not Received Total 25,752 216

Grand Total 426,596 2,728

% Received of Required 94% 92%

1 When one or more parcels in a membership is in a surface or groundwater HVA, an FE is required for all parcels enrolled under the

membership. Vulnerability is considered “unknown” when a member returns a survey with parcels that cannot be mapped and therefore cannot be associated with high or low vulnerability. 2 An additional 21 surveys were submitted by members that were not originally required to complete the survey. The results from these surveys are included in the analysis below. GW – Groundwater SW – Surface water

Figure 19. SJCDWQC member parcels associated with one or more FE for the 2017 crop year.


Members reported parcel-specific crop information on their 2017 FEs. As with previous analyses,

in the cases where multiple crops were listed for a parcel or field, the first crop was recorded as

the primary crop. Primary crops were grouped into general and subcategories to examine trends

in the Coalition region (Figure 20; Table 67). Categories with less than one percent of the total

reported acreage were grouped together Figure 20 (including oilseed crops, native vegetation,

flowers, and miscellaneous crops). Consistent with prior surveys, the largest acreage was

associated with the orchards (40% of reported acreage). Figure 21 illustrates the 2017 acreage

related to orchard subcategories. Of nut trees, 99% of the acreage was associated with almonds

(75,680 acres) or walnuts (62,508 acres; Table 67). Figure 22 similarly summarizes the types of

mixed fruit or vegetable row crops reported on 2017 FEs; corn continued to be reported for most

of the crop category’s acreage.

Figure 20. General categories of reported crops in 2017 FEs, displayed as percent of total reported acreage.


Figure 21. A summary of orchard subcategories reported on 2017 FEs.

Figure 22. A summary of the type of mixed fruit or vegetable row crops associated with 2017 FEs.


Table 67. Crop standardization table used for analysis of reported crops, shown with the percent of total reported acres per primary crop.

GENERAL CATEGORY SUB CATEGORY PRIMARY CROP REPORTED

ACRES

PERCENT OF

TOTAL

ACRES

Feed/Forage Feed/Forage

Alfalfa 23,102 5.63%

Clover 395 0.10%

Forage 1,097 0.27%

Hay 1,765 0.43%

Pasture 13,390 3.26%

Silage 471 0.11%

Flowers Flowers Flowers 1 < 0.01 %

Grains Grains

Barley 393 0.10%

Oat 2,465 0.60%

Rice 1,650 0.40%

Rye 91 0.02%

Sudan 247 0.06%

Teff 136 0.03%

Triticale 1,794 0.44%

Wheat 11,217 2.73%

Misc plants Misc plants

Various nursery plants 1,074 0.26%

Grass 1,768 0.43%

Trees 9 < 0.01 %

Mixed Fruit/Vegetable Row Crop

Asparagus Asparagus 644 0.16%

Bell Peppers Bell Peppers 160 0.04%

Berries

Strawberries 437 0.11%

Blueberries 1,114 0.27%

Raspberries 46 0.01%

Broccoli Broccoli 2 < 0.01 %

Brussel Sprouts Brussel Sprouts 44 0.01%

Bulb Vegetables Onions 1,035 0.25%

Garlic 589 0.14%

Cabbage Cabbage 117 0.03%

Corn Silage Corn 1,361 0.33%

Corn 51,863 12.64%

Cucumbers Cucumbers 1,002 0.24%

Eggplant Eggplants 2 < 0.01 %

Greens

Kale 17 < 0.01 %

Spinach 11 < 0.01 %

Lettuce 10 < 0.01 %

Greens 2 < 0.01 %

Chard 11 < 0.01 %

Herbs

Cilantro 62 0.02%

Basil 49 0.01%

Parsley 157 0.04%

Sage 5 < 0.01 %



ACRES

PERCENT OF

TOTAL

ACRES

Rosemary 25 < 0.01 %

Legumes Beans 3,576 0.87%

Green beans 1 < 0.01 %

Melons Melons 760 0.19%

Watermelons 936 0.23%

Mixed Fruits/Vegetables Mixed Fruits/Vegetables 1,960 0.48%

Vegetables 256 0.06%

Peppers Peppers 424 0.10%

Root/Tuber Vegetables

Sweet Potatoes 156 0.04%

Yams 2 < 0.01 %

Beets 10 < 0.01 %

Carrots 476 0.12%

Potatoes 1,477 0.36%

Squash Squash 470 0.11%

Pumpkins 1,685 0.41%

Tomatoes Tomatoes 14,510 3.54%

Native vegetation Native vegetation Native vegetation 232 0.06%

No Crop No Crop Dry 3,055 0.74%

No Crop 3,047 0.74%

Not Irrigated Not Irrigated

Dry crop 90 0.02%

Dry pasture 181 0.04%

Not Irrigated 181 0.04%

Dry Hay 451 0.11%

Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided 8,982 2.19%

Oilseed Group Safflower Safflower 2,695 0.66%

Sunflower Sunflowers 14 < 0.01 %

Orchard

Fruit Trees

Pomegranates 125 0.03%

Fruit Trees 87 0.02%

Mandarins 3 < 0.01 %

Persimmons 32 < 0.01 %

Nut Trees

Almonds 75,680 18.44%

Chestnuts 2 < 0.01 %

Pistachios 184 0.04%

Trees 51 0.01%

Walnuts 62,508 15.23%

Pome fruit

Apples 1,112 0.27%

Jujube 3 < 0.01 %

Pears 119 0.03%

Stone fruit

Olives 2,388 0.58%

Apricots 255 0.06%

Cherries 16,280 3.97%



ACRES

PERCENT OF

TOTAL

ACRES

Nectarines 4 < 0.01 %

Peaches 1,899 0.46%

Plums 4 < 0.01 %

Pluots 4 < 0.01 %

Trees 35 < 0.01 %

Trees Trees 930 0.23%

Other Kiwi Kiwis 8 < 0.01 %

Vineyard Grapes Grapes 83,213 20.28%

Irrigation Management Practices

Most members continued to utilize several practices to efficiently manage irrigation (Table 68).

Using current field conditions to schedule irrigation events continued to be the most reported

method of improving irrigation efficiency. This irrigation management practice was implemented

on 93% of reported survey acreage (Table 68; Figure 23).

As with prior surveys, drip irrigation was the most common primary irrigation type; drip irrigation

was utilized on 180,884 acres (Table 68). While most members did not report a secondary

irrigation practice, flood and sprinkler irrigation were the most commonly reported methods for a

secondary irrigation practice by acreage (Table 68; Table 69).

Table 68. Acreage associated with 2017 irrigation management questions and responses.

SURVEY

SECTION QUESTION RESPONSE ACREAGE

MEMBER

COUNT

B

Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Water application scheduled to need 371,012 2,227

Laser Leveling 232,631 1,164

Use of moisture probe 195,332 879

Use of ET in scheduling irrigations 192,498 815

Soil Moisture Neutron Probe 77,417 316

Pressure Bomb 61,517 214

Other 76,871 475

No Selection 1,817 19

Primary Irrigation Practices

Drip 180,884 1,036

Sprinkler 90,873 679

Flood 82,985 575

Micro Sprinkler 81,747 648

Furrow 76,955 211

Border Strip 21,725 71


Secondary Irrigation Practices

No Selection 303,160 1,995

Sprinkler 32,352 182

Flood 25,904 222

Furrow 18,684 83

Drip 18,285 126

Micro Sprinkler 15,290 101

Border Strip 4,021 22


Figure 23. Reported acreage associated with irrigation efficiency practices.

Table 69. Count of management units per combination of primary and secondary irrigation practices.

Secondary Irrigation

Border Strip Drip Flood Furrow Micro Sprinkler Sprinkler No Selection

Pri

ma

ry Ir

rig

ati

on

Border Strip 10 4 8 8 3 10 62

Drip 6 86 68 37 30 86 947

Flood 8 19 84 21 20 25 489

Furrow 6 10 34 31 4 19 173

Micro Sprinkler 3 28 66 8 63 38 553

Sprinkler 3 37 45 16 29 72 585

No Selection

13

Management Unit Total 30 36 184 305 121 149 250


Sediment Management Practices

For the potential to discharge sediment to off-farm surface waters, 93% of members indicated no

potential to discharge from their property (Table 70). A small percentage of growers responded

separately to this question for each management unit rather than for their membership as a

whole. Most Coalition members are accustomed to using management practices to control the

discharge of sediment and typically employ more than one method on a field (Table 70). As with

prior FEs, the top two practices reported by members were timing irrigation events to avoid

pesticide applications (316,232 acres) and increasing soil water penetration through amendments

(289,546 acres; Figures 24 and 25).

Table 70. Acreage associated with sediment management practice questions and responses.

SURVEY


RESPONSE

COUNT

A

Does your farm have the potential to discharge sediment to off-farm

surface waters?

No 372,513 2,438

Yes 27,547 106


D

Cultural Practices to Manage Sediment and

Erosion

Soil water penetration has been increased through the use of amendments, deep ripping and/or aeration.

289,546 1,383

Cover crops or native vegetation are used to reduce erosion. 248,343 1,501

Minimum tillage incorporated to minimize erosion. 247,375 1,461

Crop rows are graded, directed and at a length that will optimize the use of rain and irrigation water.

174,060 647

Vegetated ditches are used to remove sediment as well as water soluble pesticides, phosphate fertilizers and some

forms of nitrogen.

155,401 443

No storm drainage due to field or soil conditions. 132,674 1,453

Storm water is captured using field borders. 117,277 665

Field is lower than surrounding terrain. 101,365 539

Berms are constructed at low ends of fields to capture runoff and trap sediment.

100,673 499

Vegetative filter strips and buffers are used to capture flows. 91,796 377

Creek banks and stream banks have been stabilized. 89,527 281

Hedgerows or trees are used to help stabilize soils and trap sediment movement.

79,697 426

Subsurface pipelines are used to channel runoff water. 52,170 128

Sediment basins / holding ponds are used to settle out sediment and hydrophobic pesticides such as pyrethroids

from irrigation and storm runoff.

46,017 160


Other 2,442 34

Irrigation Practices for Managing Sediment and

Erosion

The time between pesticide applications and the next irrigation is lengthened as much as possible to mitigate

runoff of pesticide residue.

316,232 1,635

Use drip or micro-irrigation to eliminate irrigation drainage. 247,906 1,515

Shorter irrigation runs are used with checks to manage and capture flows.

170,847 732

No irrigation drainage due to field or soil conditions. 165,845 1,547

In-furrow dams are used to increase infiltration and settling out of sediment prior to entering the tail ditch.

68,259 230


SURVEY


RESPONSE

COUNT

Tailwater Return System. 51,430 123

Catchment Basin. 38,960 151

Use of flow dissipaters to minimize erosion at discharge point.

27,501 104

PAM (polyacrylamide) used in furrow and flood irrigated fields to help bind sediment and increase infiltration.

15,782 46


Other 1,943 19


Figure 24. Reported acreage associated with cultural practices implemented to manage sediment and erosion.


Figure 25. Reported acreage associated with irrigation practices implemented to manage sediment and erosion.


Pesticide & Nutrient Management

Few changes in management practices occurred across the past four years of FE surveys. Members

continued to implement multiple practices on their fields aimed at reducing the movement of

pesticides and nutrients to surface waters (Table 71; Figure 26; Figure 27). Of the 15 pesticide

management practices included on the FEs, on average, members continued to employ ten pesticide

management practices concurrently. Following county permit requirements, label restrictions, and

monitoring wind conditions when applying pesticides remained the top reported practices by

Coalition members. The PCAs continued to be the most common resource to growers for developing

crop fertility plans.

Figure 27 includes the acreage associated with nitrogen management practices implemented by

members in 2017. Members continue to employ, on average, four management practices to reduce

the amount of nitrogen leaching past the root zone (Table 71; Figure 27). As with prior surveys, soil

testing and split fertilizer applications are the two most reported management practices across all

major crop types.

Table 71. Pesticide and nutrient management practices implemented by members including associated parcel acreage and response count.

SURVEY

SECTION QUESTION RESPONSE ACREAGE RESPONSE COUNT

A

Pesticide Application Practices

Follow Label Restrictions 391,328 2,347

County Permit Followed 388,926 2,318

Monitor Wind Conditions 388,523 2,299

Attend Trainings 382,902 2,175

Use PCA Recommendations 378,930 2,194

End of Row Shutoff When Spraying 376,053 2,191

Avoid Surface Water When Spraying 371,881 2,114

Monitor Rain Forecasts 363,553 2,097

Use Drift Control Agents 352,519 1,821

Use Appropriate Buffer Zones 352,106 1,897

Reapply Rinsate to Treated Field 270,541 1,280

Sensitive Areas Mapped 220,855 996

Use Vegetated Drain Ditches 190,277 550

Chemigation 161,886 762

Target Sensing Sprayer used 84,171 391

Other 26,919 176

No Pesticides Applied 8,986 176

No Selection 882 6

Who helps develop the crop fertility plan?

Pest Control Advisor (PCA) 383,482 2,216

Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) 224,198 1,224

Professional Agronomist 121,826 512

Professional Soil Scientist 110,574 443

UC Farm Advisor 87,656 416

Independently Prepared by Member 58,844 377

Certified Technical Service Providers by NRCS 17,658 65

None of the above 5,290 170

No Selection 835 5

B N Management

Practices

Soil Testing 349,741 1,865

Split Fertilizer Applications 331,719 1,941

Tissue/Petiole Testing 292,225 1,599

Fertigation 218,700 1,142


SURVEY

SECTION QUESTION RESPONSE ACREAGE RESPONSE COUNT

Irrigation Water N Testing 205,433 967

Foliar N Application 204,935 1,183

Cover Crops 166,704 1,001

Variable Rate Applications using GPS 29,411 93

Other 16,543 112

Do Not Apply Nitrogen 13,657 270


Figure 26. Pesticide management practices implemented by members. Shown in terms of reported parcel acreage.


Figure 27. Nitrogen management practices implemented by members. Shown as reported parcel acreage.

Well Management Practices

Irrigation Wells

On 2017 FEs, 1,736 members reported the presence of at least one irrigation well on their property.

A summary of the acreage and count of members who have irrigation wells and wellhead protection

practices is provided in Table 72. On average, four wellhead practices per well were reported to

prevent groundwater pollution (responses were consistent with responses from previous years).

Table 72. Irrigation well information by membership acreage, member count, and well count. Acreage is not associated with Wellhead Protection Practices since these practices are well specific.

SURVEY

SECTION QUESTION RESPONSE ACREAGE COUNT

C

Member

Do you have any irrigation wells on parcels associated with this Farm Evaluation?

Yes 270,440 1,736

No 129,557 800

No Selection 986 10

Well

Wellhead Protection Practices

Good “Housekeeping” Practices - 3,820

Standing water avoided around wellhead

- 3,740

Ground sloped away from wellhead

- 3,707

Backflow preventive/check valve

- 3,444

Air gap - 1,580

Cement pad - 1,462

No Data Entered - 9

Unique Irrigation Wells 3,828


Abandoned Wells

Of the 2017 FEs returned, 95% of members reported no abandoned wells on their parcels and 1% left

the question blank for at least one management unit. Four percent of members who returned

surveys indicated abandoned wells on their property- a large portion of which have been properly

destroyed. Table 73 includes member responses on abandoned well practices and acreage

associated with abandoned wells.

Members reported a total of 104 abandoned wells. Table 74 lists the year growers reported wells on

their parcels were abandoned. If a grower reported a well on their property was destroyed during a

given decade, the first year of the decade was used to summarize the year the well was abandoned.

The number of wells abandoned over the years has fluctuated without a clear pattern across time. Of

the 96 members with abandoned wells, 25 members destroyed the well using a licensed professional,

26 had the destroyed well certified by the county, 29 indicated that the well was destroyed using an

unknown method; there is no data for how 16 of the abandoned wells were destroyed.

Table 73. Acreage associated with abandoned well practices. SURVEY

SECTION QUESTION RESPONSE ACREAGE COUNT

C

Member

Are you aware of any known abandoned wells associated with this Farm Evaluation?

No 381,625 2,418

Yes 16,503 96


Wells1

Abandoned Well Practices

Destroyed – certified by county

- 34

Destroyed - Unknown method

- 34

Destroyed by licensed professional

- 30

No Data Entered - 28 1 Abandoned wells may be reported with more than one abandoned well practice.

Table 74. Count of wells abandoned in each year separated by abandonment method. One well may have multiple methods reported.

YEAR WELL ABANDONED (SURVEY SECTION C) DESTROYED – CERTIFIED BY COUNTY

DESTROYED -

UNKNOWN

METHOD

DESTROYED BY

LICENSED

PROFESSIONAL

NO DATA

ENTERED

1940 1

1960 1 3

1962 1 1

1970 1 2 1

1972 2

1976 1

1978 1 2

1979 1

1980 1 1

1983 1

1984 1

1985 1

1988 1 1

1989 3 1 2

1990 3 2


YEAR WELL ABANDONED (SURVEY SECTION C) DESTROYED – CERTIFIED BY COUNTY

DESTROYED -

UNKNOWN

METHOD

DESTROYED BY

LICENSED

PROFESSIONAL

NO DATA

ENTERED

1991 2

1992 1 1

1993 3 3

1994 1

1995 1

1996 1

1998 1

1999 1

2002 1

2005 1 1

2006 1 1 1

2007 1

2008 1 1

2009 1 1 1

2010 2 2

2012 2 4 2

2013 1 2 1

2015 2 2

2016 1 2

2017 1

UNK 3 16 3 13

Total Unique Abandoned Wells 104


SEDIMENT DISCHARGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN All Coalition members are required to implement sediment discharge and erosion prevention

practices. Table 75 includes all submittal and approval dates associated with the Coalition’s

SDEAR.

Table 75. SJCDWQC SDEAR associated submittal and approval dates. DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL DATE APPROVAL DATE

SDEAR April 27, 2015 August 12, 2015 (conditional)

SDEAR Addendum- Proximity Work Plan December 15, 2015 January 22, 2016 (conditional)

SDEAR- Phase I Proximity to Major Waterbodies April 22, 2016 September 21, 2016

SDEAR- Phase II Proximity to Secondary Waterbodies July 22, 2016 September 21, 2016

SDEAR- Phase III Proximity to Tertiary Tributaries July 24, 2017 Pending

The Coalition utilizes, the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), returned FE responses,

and proximity to waterbodies (major, secondary, and tertiary) to identify areas where growers are

required to complete Sediment and Erosion Control Plans (SECPs). Table 76includes SECP

certification due dates for parcels identified in each of the three phases of the proximity analyses).

For the 2018 WY, the Coalition reviewed and updated SECP requirements by parcel based on

2016 FE data and Phase I and Phase II proximity analyses in December 2017. Members were

informed if their SECP requirement changed or remained the same as the previous year.

Members with Phase I or Phase II parcels were asked to notify the Coalition if the parcel was

exempt from the SECP requirement due to one of the three allowable exemptions (hydraulic

barrier, low field elevation, or riparian area) or to complete the SECP by February 28, 2018.

Table 76. Member parcels requiring the SECP due to the RUSLE output value, FE data, and/or proximity analyses.

SECP CATEGORY MEMBER PARCEL

COUNT1 DATE CERTIFICATION

REQUIRED

Required due to RUSLE 639

February 6, 2016

Exempted RUSLE parcels (adjacent to waterway with hydraulic barrier, low field elevation, riparian area or non-agriculture use)

65

Required due to FE response 450

Required due to no FE 220

Phase I Proximity 66 February 28, 2017

Exempted Phase I parcels (Hydraulic barrier, low field elevation, riparian area) 90 NA2

Phase II Proximity 315 February 28, 2018

Exempted Phase II parcels (Hydraulic barrier, low field elevation, riparian area) 119 NA2

Phase III Proximity 44 February 28, 2019

Exempted Phase III parcels (Hydraulic barrier, low field elevation, riparian area) 5 NA2 1 – The counts of member parcels change with enrollment updates and proximity exemption forms. Data as of March 13, 2019. 2 – No SECP is required for parcels identified as being exempt.

The Coalition is working with other Central Valley coalitions to develop a program and resources

to assist growers in completing and certifying their SECPs. The Coalition offers SECP assistance

to growers through trained NRCS and RCD staff members with knowledge of erosion control and

capability to evaluate sites for the need to implement erosion management practices. Staff assists

members with SECP related questions through phone calls and emails. Common questions

include proper understanding of the FE sediment and erosion question, how to correctly complete

the SECP template, how to certify the SECP, and why the SECP is required for their property.


STATUS OF SPECIAL PROJECTS

Special projects in the SJCDWQC region include MPM and TMDL compliance monitoring as

required by the WDR (Attachment B, Page 4). During the 2018 WY, the Coalition monitored in

accordance with the Basin Plan requirements for chlorpyrifos and diazinon TMDL monitoring, the

2018 WY MPU (approved September 17, 2018), the WDR (Order No. R5-2008-0005-03), and the

SJCDWQC 2015 SQMP (approved November 24, 2015). If a single exceedance of the WQTL for a

constituent under an EPA approved TMDL occurs (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, DO, salinity, boron, and

methyl mercury), a management plan is required for that constituent in the site subwatershed. If

there is no TMDL for a constituent, a management plan is required if more than one exceedance

occurs of the WQTL of a constituent at a given location within a three-year period.

SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES

When a management plan is developed for a site subwatershed, additional Focused Outreach

effort within the subwatershed is required. Management plan efforts include but are not limited

to:

• Continued monitoring as outlined in the Coalition’s approved WDR. • Analysis of PUR data. • Conducting site subwatershed grower meetings. • Encouraging and evaluating implementation of management practices. • Compliance with load limits for TMDLs.

A narrative concerning each monitoring constituent is provided in the Coalition’s SQMP as well as

the Coalition strategy to meet the 10-year compliance requirements to complete management

plans.

After three years of monitoring at a site with no exceedances of the WQTL for a specific

management plan constituent, the Coalition may petition to the Regional Water Board for

completion of the management plan. Three years of monitoring with no exceedances indicates

improved water quality resulting from the implementation of management practices effective in

reducing/eliminating offsite movement of agricultural constituents. Table 77 includes the number

of management plans requested and approved for completion, as well as submittal and approval

dates. Table 78 lists current management plans per site, constituents approved for management

plan completion, and reinstated management plans.

The Coalition has received approval to complete 72 management plans (81 if including completed

management plans for site subwatersheds no longer active) for 15 site subwatersheds (Table 77).

Three management plans have been reinstated due to additional exceedances of the WQTLs.

There are 99 active management plans in 26 site subwatersheds (Table 78).


Table 77. Number of complete management plans and submittal/approval dates.

SUBMITTAL DATE MANAGEMENT PLANS REQUESTED

FOR COMPLETION MANAGEMENT PLANS APPROVED

FOR COMPLETION APPROVAL DATE

1/6/2012 20 19 3/22, 4/17 and 5/21/2012

11/13/2012 27 20 2/22/2013

6/9/2014 13 5 8/22/2014

8/6/2015 21 20 12/18/2015

11/16/2016 8 8 3/8/2017

11/16/2017 5 4 2/9/2018

11/16/2018 7 5 1/18/2019

Total 101 81* NA *Includes completed management plans from site subwatersheds that are no longer actively being monitored.

STATUS OF MANAGEMENT PLANS

The Coalition’s management plan strategy has been effective in addressing identified water

quality impairments. Focused outreach has resulted in greater awareness of water quality

concerns and the implementation of management practices designed to reduce the offsite

movement of agricultural constituents and sediment. In addressing the sixth programmatic

question in the WDR, “Are the applicable surface water quality management plans effective in

addressing identified water quality problems?”, the Coalition evaluated MPM results and

concluded that water quality continues to improve throughout the Coalition region. The

completion of management plans in site subwatersheds where Focused Outreach occurred

demonstrates the effectiveness of management practices (Table 77 and Table 78).


Table 78. Status of SJCDWQC management plan constituents per active site subwatershed. Active – X, Re-instated—light grey cell; and completed – dark grey cell.

Site Subwatershed DO

*

pH

*

SC*

Am

mo

nia

Nit

rate

/Nit

rite

E. c

oli

Ars

en

ic

Co

pp

er

Lead

Atr

azin

e

Ch

lorp

yrif

os

DD

E

DD

T

Dia

zin

on

Die

ldri

n

Diu

ron

Dis

ulf

oto

n

HC

H, d

elt

a

Mal

ath

ion

Sim

azin

e

Toxi

city

to

C. d

ub

ia

Toxi

city

to

P. p

rom

ela

s

Toxi

city

to

S. c

ap

rico

rnu

tum

Toxi

city

to

H. a

ztec

a

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River X X X X X X X

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd X X

Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone Rd X X

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd X X X X X

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 X X X

East Orwood Tract Drain X X X X

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd X X X X X

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way X X X

Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln X X

Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln X X X X

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd X X X

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd X X X

Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd X X X

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd X X X

Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd X

Pixley Slough @ Furry Rd X

Rindge Tract Drain X X X

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump X X X X X

Sand Creek @ Hwy 4 Bypass X X X X X

South McDonald Island Pump X X X

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd X X X X X

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 X X X X X X X

Gra

nd

To

tal

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd X X X X X X X X


X X

X

X X

Upper Roberts Island Drain X X X X

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave X X X X X

Total Completed 2 5 4 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 9 0 0 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 9 3 8 9 72

Total Reinstated 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

Total Active 24 9 14 3 3 16 4 0 1 0 5 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 99


New Management Plans Required After 2018 WY Monitoring

As a result of monitoring from the 2018 WY, several new site/constituent specific management

plans are required. Exceedances were most common for the field parameters, DO/ pH, and SC

(one new management plan). Five new management plans were implemented: ammonia (2),

nitrate + nitrite (1), and algae toxicity (2; Table 79).

Table 79 is a tally of exceedances from the 2018 WY, cells with blue highlights indicate

constituents that are currently in management plans, dark green highlights indicate new

sites/constituents that have been added to management plans, and light green highlights indicate

reinstated management plans (none for the 2018 WY).

Table 79. SJCDWQC exceedance tally based on 2018 WY monitoring results. Sites and constituents are listed alphabetically.

SITE NAME DO

pH

SC

E. c

oli

Am

mo

nia

Ars

en

ic

Nit

rate

+ N

itri

te

Ch

lorp

yri

fos

Py

reth

roid

s

To

xic

ity

to

S. C

AP

RIC

OR

NU

TU

M

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River 12 2 3 2 1

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd 8 4

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd 10 4 3 3 3

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 2

East Orwood Tract Drain 3 1 2

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd 2 1

French Camp Slough at Airport Way 5 4 1 1

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 1

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd 3

Rindge Tract Drain 4 2 2

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump 4 5 4

South McDonald Island Pump 2

Staten Island Drain @ Staten Island Rd 1 1 1

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 6 2

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd 9 5 3 1 2 3

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 1 1

Upper Roberts Island Drain 3 3

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave 10 1 4 1

Grand Total 86 3 24 21 4 5 1 1 1 16


STATUS OF TMDLS

The Coalition evaluates compliance with US EPA-approved TMDL discharge limitations based on

TMDL monitoring and reporting requirements specified in the WDR and the Fifth Edition of the

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins (hereafter,

Basin Plan; Revised May 2018).

Monitoring occurred in the Coalition region during the 2018 WY. Approved TMDLs in the

Coalition region include chlorpyrifos and diazinon, DO, methyl mercury, salt (electrical

conductivity), and boron. Table 80 lists all constituents with TMDLs in one or more waterbodies in

the Coalition boundary, and the USEPA approved documents that apply to these TMDLs.

Table 80. US EPA approved TMDL documents that apply to waterbodies within the SJCDWQC boundaries and list agriculture as a potential source.

CONSTITUENTS BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT NAME DATE IN

EFFECT APPLICABLE WATERBODY WITHIN THE

COALITION

Electrical Conductivity and

Boron

Salt and Boron Discharges into the Lower San Joaquin River

7/28/2006 San Joaquin River (Mendota Dam to Airport

Way Bridge near Vernalis)

Low Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved Oxygen Impairment in the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel

8/23/2006 San Joaquin River (between Turner Cut and

Stockton, 1 September through 30 November)

Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon

Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Runoff into the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta 10/10/2007

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta named waterways listed in Appendix 43 of the Basin

Plan

Methyl Mercury and Total Mercury

Methyl Mercury and Total Mercury in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River

Delta Estuary 10/20/2011

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta named waterways listed in Appendix 43 of the Basin

Plan

Coalition efforts to address exceedances of TMDL constituents are the same as any management

plan constituent and include 1) additional monitoring and source identification, 2) focused

outreach in the site subwatershed (including conducting site subwatershed grower meetings and

encouraging the implementation of management practices), 3) evaluating the efficacy of

management practices, and 4) addressing the seven surveillance and monitoring objectives

described in the Basin Plan for the chlorpyrifos and diazinon TMDL.

The following sections below include discussions pertaining to 1) each US EPA approved TMDL

constituent, 2) the Coalition’s strategy for achieving TMDL compliance, and 3) actions taken to

meet the TMDL requirements during the 2018 WY.

Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL

The Coalition is responsible for compliance with the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Diazinon

and Chlorpyrifos TMDL (hereafter, Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL; Table 81). One TMDL

compliance point is located within the SJCDWQC Coalition (San Joaquin River @ Vernalis).

However, this compliance point receives most of its drainage from areas outside of the Coalition

region to the south. Therefore, the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition (ESJWQC) and the

Westside San Joaquin River Watershed Coalition (WSJRWC) monitor for TMDL compliance at

this location.


The Coalition collaborated with the Regional Water Board to establish a monitoring and reporting

strategy to demonstrate compliance with the Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL.

The TMDL Monitoring Objectives and Design section of this report outlines the SJCDWQC

monitoring objectives and design for the Coalition’s TMDL compliance monitoring program.

To assess compliance with load capacity during the 2018 WY, the Coalition monitored the four

locations as required annually during one storm event and once a month from May through

August. Monitoring at the four Delta locations occurred during the 2018 WY to assess

compliance with load capacity at: Old River at the West End of Clifton Court Rd, San Joaquin

River @ West Neugerbauer Rd, Light House Restaurant @ West Brannon Island Rd, and Walthall

Slough @ Woodward Ave (Table 81 and Figure 28).

Table 81. Load capacity sites during the 2018 WY, and the Delta segments. SITE NAME DELTA SEGMENT REPRESENTED LATITUDE LONGITUDE


Delta Waterways (central and eastern portions), Mosher Slough (downstream of I-5) and Five Mile Slough (Alexandria

Place to Fourteen Mile Slough) 38.10487 -121.59299

Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd

Delta Waterways (export area, southern and western portions)

37.84195 -121.53721

San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd

Delta Waterways (Stockton Ship Channel) 37.99493 -121.44173


San Joaquin River (Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary)1 37.77046 -121.29227

1 This segment is addressed in the Lower San Joaquin River Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL and is associated with the compliance location San Joaquin River @ Vernalis. This segment was delisted from the 303(d) list for diazinon in 2008.


Figure 28. SJCDWQC 2018 WY Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL load capacity and load allocation sites.


To assess compliance with load allocation during the 2018 WY, the Coalition sampled seven

tributary sites for chlorpyrifos and diazinon as outlined in the 2018 WY MPU (Table 82 and Figure

28).

Load allocation is assessed through monitoring at named Delta waterways and tributaries that

drain to named Delta waterways from both inside and outside the legal Delta boundary. The Basin

Plan amendment states “For Delta Waterways that flow into the Legal Delta from outside, the

Load Allocations for the discharges to each waterbody upstream of the Legal Delta would be

defined at the point where the waterway enters the legal Delta”. Some of the Coalition’s sampling

sites are upstream of the legal Delta; therefore, compliance at these sites is evaluated utilizing

water quality data from the most downstream waterbody. For instance, Littlejohns Creek, Lone

Tree Creek, and Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek all drain into French Camp Slough and

therefore load allocation compliance for these sites is evaluated with French Camp Slough @

Airport Way (most downstream waterbody) monitoring data.

Table 82. The 2018 WY TMDL load allocation tributary monitoring sites. Sorted by Delta Segment.

DELTA SEGMENT SITE NAME MONITORING

TYPE LATITUDE LONGITUDE

CONSTITUENT

MONITORED MAP

KEY

Delta eastern portion, outside legal Delta

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd CSM 38.07386 -121.21215 D 1

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Road

MPM, RSM 37.96470 -121.14880 C 2

Duck Creek @ Highway 4 MPM, RSM 37.94949 -121.18208 C 3

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way

CSM, MPM 37.88172 -121.24933 C 4


MPM, RSM 37.85360 -121.14570 C 5

Drain to Delta waterways (eastern portion)

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 MPM 38.11558 -121.49380 C 6

Drain to Delta waterways (southern portion)

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd CSM, MPM,

RSM 37.87170 -121.52551 C 7

C – Chlorpyrifos; D - Diazinon CSM – Core Site Monitoring, conducted monthly. MPM - Management Plan Monitoring, conducted during months of past exceedances. RSM – Represented Site Monitoring

During the 2018 WY, the timing and location of monitoring at load allocation sites varied

depending on the site’s monitoring type (Table 83).

Table 83. The 2018 WY TMDL load capacity and load allocation monitoring schedule. Sites were monitored for chlorpyrifos (C) and/or diazinon (D).

SITE NAME SITE TYPE 10

/17

/20

17

1/1

1/2

01

8

2/2

0/2

01

8

3/1

4/2

01

8

4/1

0/2

01

8

5/1

5/2

01

8

6/1

9/2

01

8

7/1

7/2

01

8

8/2

1/2

01

8

9/1

8/2

01

8

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd Load Allocation D D D

Duck Creek @ Highway 4 Load Allocation C C C C C C

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way Load Allocation C C C C C C C C C

Light House Restaurant @ West Brannon Island Rd Load Capacity C,D C,D C,D C,D C,D

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Road Load Allocation C C C C

Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd Load Capacity C,D C,D C,D C,D C,D

San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd Load Capacity C,D C,D C,D C,D C,D


SITE NAME SITE TYPE 10

/17

/20

17

1/1

1/2

01

8

2/2

0/2

01

8

3/1

4/2

01

8

4/1

0/2

01

8

5/1

5/2

01

8

6/1

9/2

01

8

7/1

7/2

01

8

8/2

1/2

01

8

9/1

8/2

01

8

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 Load Allocation C C C C C

Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd Load Allocation C

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd Load Allocation C C C C C C

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave Load Capacity C,D C,D C,D C,D C,D

Compliance with Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon Load Capacity and Load Allocation

A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant (load or concentration) that a

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that load among

the various sources of that pollutant. Load capacity and load allocations for nonpoint source

discharges to Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Waterways, including agricultural discharges, shall

not exceed the sum of one. The summed load capacity is calculated with the following equation:

S= load capacity sum CD = diazinon concentration in µg/L CC = chlorpyrifos concentration in µg/L WQOD = diazinon water quality objective; 0.1 µg/L WQOC = chlorpyrifos water quality objective; 0.015 µg/L

The Coalition assessed load capacity at the sites listed in Table 84. There were no detections of

chlorpyrifos or diazinon at any load capacity site during the 2018 WY; therefore, all were in

compliance with the Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL.

Table 84. The 2018 WY TMDL load capacity compliance calculations for nonpoint source discharges.

STATION NAME SAMPLE DATE CHLORPYRIFOS DIAZINON LOAD LOAD CAPACITY

COMPLIANCE


1/11/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

5/15/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

6/19/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

7/17/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

8/21/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance


1/11/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

5/15/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

6/19/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

7/17/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

8/21/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd (Roberts Island off Windmill Cove)

1/11/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

5/15/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

6/19/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

7/17/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

8/21/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance


1/11/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

5/15/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

6/19/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

7/17/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance


STATION NAME SAMPLE DATE CHLORPYRIFOS DIAZINON LOAD LOAD CAPACITY

COMPLIANCE

8/21/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance

The Coalition assessed load allocation at monitoring sites listed in Table 85. Chlorpyrifos was

detected in four samples during the 2018 WY. One of those detections (Unnamed Drain to Lone

Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd on June 19, 2018) resulted in an exceedance of the WQTL for

chlorpyrifos (0.015 µg/L) and was out of compliance with established load allocations. Diazinon

was not detected in any samples during the 2018 WY. All other sites were in compliance with

established load allocations for chlorpyrifos and diazinon (Table 85).

Table 86 provides a summary of the load capacity and allocation information for the Delta

subareas and waterbodies from the 2018 WY.

Table 85. The 2018 WY TMDL load allocation compliance calculations for nonpoint source discharges.

STATION NAME SAMPLE DATE CHLORPYRIFOS DIAZINON LOAD LOAD ALLOCATION

COMPLIANCE

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd 2/20/2018 <0.0026 <0.004 0 In Compliance



Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 4/10/2018 <0.0026 NS 0 In Compliance

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 5/15/2018 0.0037 NS 0.25 In Compliance





French Camp Slough at Airport Way 10/17/2017 <0.0026 NS 0 In Compliance





French Camp Slough at Airport Way 5/15/2018 0.008 NS 0.53 In Compliance




Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd 4/10/2018 <0.0026 NS 0 In Compliance




Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 1/11/2018 <0.0026 NS 0 In Compliance





Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd 1/11/2018 <0.0026 NS 0 In Compliance

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 1/11/2018 <0.0026 NS 0 In Compliance

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 5/15/2018 0.0055 NS 0.37 In Compliance

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 6/19/2018 0.038 NS 2.53 Out of Compliance




NS-Not sampled; analyte not scheduled for analysis during event.


Table 86. Summary of load capacity and allocation compliance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Subareas during the 2018 WY.

TYPE OF

LOAD

COMPLIANCE DELTA SEGMENT REPRESENTED SITE NAME

IN

COMPLIANCE OUT OF

COMPLIANCE

TOTAL

TMDL

SAMPLES

COLLECTED

Load Capacity

Delta Waterways (central and eastern portions), Mosher Slough (downstream of I-5) and Five Mile Slough (Alexandria Place to

Fourteen Mile Slough)


5 0 5

Delta Waterways (export area, southern and western portions)


5 0 5

Delta Waterways (Stockton Ship Channel) San Joaquin River @ West

Neugerbauer Rd 5 0 5

San Joaquin River (Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary)

Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave 5 0 5

Load Allocation

Delta eastern portion, outside legal Delta

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd 3 0 3

Duck Creek @ Highway 4 6 0 6

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way 9 0 9

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd 4 0 4


5 1 6

Drain to Delta waterways (eastern portion) Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 5 0 5

Drain to Delta waterways (southern portion) Union Island Drain @ Bonetti Rd 1 0 1

Total 53 1 54

Implementation and Effectiveness of Management Practices to Reduce Offsite Movement of Chlorpyrifos and

Diazinon

The Coalition tracked newly implemented management practices and evaluated their efficacy by

assessing water quality by zone and site (refer to the ‘Surface Water Evaluation of Management

Practice Effectiveness’ section of this report). The management practices implemented by

members have been designed to improve water quality by preventing the offsite movement of

constituents such chlorpyrifos and diazinon. The Coalition documented current, planned, and

newly implemented management practices in site subwatersheds through Focused Outreach

efforts.

Alternatives to Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon

Below is an analysis of applications of chlorpyrifos and diazinon and alternative pesticides in the

SJCDWQC region from the 2005 WY through the 2018 WY.

The PUR data were reviewed for the 2018 WY to determine amounts and trends of use. All PUR

data are considered preliminary until they have been posted from CalPIP; CalPIP data are

available online through December 2016. The PUR data for the 2018 WY are considered

complete for all counties through September 2018, i.e. at least 80 percent of the application

records are available.

The amount of chlorpyrifos and diazinon applied in the SJCDWQC region has declined since the

2005 WY (Figure 29).


Figure 29. Pounds of chlorpyrifos and diazinon applied in the SJCDWQC region from the 2005 WY through the 2018 WY.

Several pesticides and products exist as alternatives to chlorpyrifos and diazinon (other

organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids). During outreach, the Coalition informs

growers of alternative products. However, use of alternatives to chlorpyrifos and diazinon

depends on the product registration, commodity, pest pressures, need/timing of applications,

among other factors.

To evaluate the use of alternatives to chlorpyrifos and diazinon, the SJCDWQC Coalition

reviewed 1) the commodities with the most applied use of chlorpyrifos or diazinon in the region, 2)

the pests associated with those commodities, and 3) the pesticides available to control them. The

commodities in the SJCDWQC region with the most pounds of chlorpyrifos applied in the 2018

WY include (listed in order of highest to lowest and ≥1% of total): grapes, walnuts, almonds, corn,

onion, asparagus, apple, and alfalfa (Table 87). The commodities in the SJCDWQC region with the

largest applications of diazinon in the 2018 WY include (listed in order of highest to lowest and

≥1% of total apples, idle, cherry, peach, almond, and pear (Table 87). Those crops with ≥1% of total

applied pounds chlorpyrifos and/or diazinon are referred to as “top” commodities in text below

and are highlighted in grey in Table 87. Finally, the commodities in the SJCDWQC region with the

largest, combined pounds of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (≥1% of total combined chlorpyrifos and

diazinon) applied in the 2018 WY include (listed in order of highest to lowest and ≥1% of total):

grapes, walnuts, apple, almonds, idle, corn, onion, asparagus and cherry (Table 87). The

commodities in green cells in Table 87 represent the combined “top” commodities capturing ≥1%

of total applications for both chlorpyrifos and diazinon.

The SJCDWQC analyzed regional PUR data from the 2018 WY for all pesticides applied for each

“top” commodity. Applied pesticides were then sorted for type of use, retaining only those

pesticides used as insecticides or miticides, insect growth regulators, or insect growth hormone

mimics. Pesticides with the following characteristics were not considered to be alternatives to

chlorpyrifos and/or diazinon and were therefore excluded from further analysis: 1) chemical class

of oil or petroleum derivatives, 2) with the primary active ingredient being copper sulfate, kaolin,


line-sulfur, or sulfur, or 3) were applied via fumigation. Pesticide class may include categories that

are not pesticides, such as microbial. Pesticide (chemical) class was obtained primarily from

Pesticide Action Network online database: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Search_Chemicals.jsp.

The University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Integrated Pest

Management Program (UC IPM; http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html) was also

reviewed for alternative pesticides and management strategies recommended for each pest listed

for each “top” commodity.

Table 87. Commodities in the SJCDWQC region with the most pounds of chlorpyrifos and diazinon applied in the 2018 WY (Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties).

COMMODITY

TOTAL POUNDS CHEMICAL APPLIED AND PERCENT OF TOTAL CHEMICAL APPLIED (≥1%

COMMODITIES)

CHLORPYRIFOS % OF

TOTAL DIAZINON

% OF

TOTAL CHLORPYRIFOS +

DIAZINON % OF

TOTAL

GRAPE, WINE 7,952 49.2% 0 0.0% 7,952 40.1%

WALNUT 3,669 22.7% 0 0.0% 3,669 18.5%

APPLE 497 3.1% 1,714 46.7% 2,211 11.1%

ALMOND 1,420 8.8% 115 3.1% 1,535 7.7%

UNCULTIVATED AG 7 0.0% 1,229 33.5% 1,236 6.2%

CORN 839 5.2% 0 0.0% 839 4.2%

ONION DRY ETC 806 5.0% 0 0.0% 806 4.1%

ASPARAGUS 509 3.1% 0 0.0% 509 2.6%

ALFALFA 439 2.7% 0 0.0% 439 2.2%

CHERRY 36 0.2% 328 8.9% 364 1.8%

PEACH 0 0.0% 158 4.3% 158 0.8%

PEAR 0 0.0% 54 1.5% 54 0.3%

WATERMELON 0 0.0% 23 0.6% 23 0.1%

MELON SEED 0 0.0% 21 0.6% 21 0%

NECTARINE 0 0.0% 12 0.3% 12 0.1%

APRICOT 0 0.0% 8 0.2% 8 0.0%

PLUM 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 4 0.0%

N-OUTDR PLANTS 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 2 0.0%

TOMATO PROCESS 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

N-OUTDR TRANSPL 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Subtotals for Values >1% (Chlorpyrifos + Diazinon) 16,174 100.0% 3,598 98.1% 19,772 99.6%

Grand Totals 16,177 100.0% 3,667 100.0% 19,844 100.0%

Grey cells indicate commodities with the greatest application of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos+ diazinon (≥1% of total). Green cells indicate those commodities reviewed for alternative pesticides and calculated as representing ≥1% of total applications for both chlorpyrifos and diazinon.

Total pounds of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and alternative pesticides applied during the 2018 WY are

included in Figure 30. These data indicate the amount of each pesticide used in the region by crop;

however, the data cannot distinguish if pesticides were 1) used in place of chlorpyrifos or diazinon,

2)applied in response to the presence of a different pest, 3) applied during a different phase of the

life cycle of a common insect pest, or 4) applied as part of a program of chemical rotation to avoid

resistance.

As depicted in Figure 29, both chlorpyrifos and diazinon use declined substantially since the 2005

WY. A total of 16,177 lbs of chlorpyrifos was applied in the Coalition region during the 2018 WY

(Table 87), with approximately 50% applied on grapes.


Chlorpyrifos is no longer the most heavily applied insecticide among the top commodities with

chlorpyrifos use (pounds active ingredient applied) in the top commodities behind that of

diacylhydrazine, hydrazine carboxylate, pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, pheromones and other

organophosphate pesticides (Figure 30).

During the 2018 WY, chlorpyrifos accounted for just over 6% of the total pounds of insecticides

(chlorpyrifos + diazinon + alternatives) applied to the top commodities (Figure 30) versus 13.9% in

the 2017 WY. A total of 3,667 lbs of diazinon were applied in the Coalition region during the 2018

WY (Table 87). Approximately 1,229 lbs of diazinon were applied within the month of October

2017 to land designated as “idle” in the Contra Costa PUR data (33.5% of the amount reported

overall). Diazinon comprised just over 1% of the total insecticides (chlorpyrifos + diazinon +

alternatives) applied to the top commodities as identified in Table 87 (Figure 30).


Figure 30. Pounds of pesticides applied during the 2018 WY to the top commodities in the SJCDWQC region.


The SJCDWQC monitored 13 tributary sites for several pesticides that are alternatives to

chlorpyrifos and diazinon, and indicative water column toxicity. Monitoring for these constituents

typically coincided with water column and sediment toxicity monitoring (in March and

September). During the 2018 WY, the sampling of specific pesticides was determined in the 2018

WY MPU. There were no exceedances of alternative pesticides, and no water column or sediment

toxicity (other than to S. capricornutum) in the SJCDWQC region. There was, however, the single

exceedance of chlorpyrifos on June 19, 2018 at Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek.

Toxicity Due to Additive or Synergistic Effects of Multiple Pollutants

In order to determine whether there is additivity or synergy in toxicity caused by different

chemicals in ambient water, the Coalition determines the number of TUs of each chemical in the

ambient sample. Based on the concentration of chemicals detected in the water column or

sediment, the number of TUs can be calculated and a determination can be made of the potential

cause(s) of the toxicity. While the Coalition analyzes for numerous pesticides, there are far more

pesticides applied than those included in the water chemistry analyses performed by the

laboratories. A full TIE isolates the organic compounds by a solid phase extraction column and

then characterizes the compounds through mass spectrometry analysis. When required, the

Coalition performs a Phase I and Phase III TIEs which allow for the isolation of a compound type

(i.e. non-polar organic, metals) but do not analyze the isolate to identify the specific compound.

The cost of a full TIE is quite high and the Coalition found targeted outreach using the results of

the Phase I and Phase III TIE results was sufficient to recommend specific BMPs. In addition, TIEs

are not performed on sediment, instead, toxic sediment samples are subject to further analysis for

chlorpyrifos, piperonyl butoxide (PBO), and pyrethroids (if survival is less than 80% compared to

the control and statistically significant). From these results, the Coalition is able to calculate TUs

and analyze the additive and/or synergistic effects of multiple pollutants.

If all chemicals in a sample are quantified with confidence, and the LC50 is available for the test

species for all quantified chemicals, it is possible to determine if the observed toxicity is matched

by the sum of the TUs of the chemicals in the sample. If the TUs are accounted for by the TUs of

the individual chemicals and the chemicals have the same mode of action, the toxicity is

considered additive. If the number of TUs quantified from the ambient sample is greater than the

sum of the TUs of the quantified chemicals, the chemicals are synergistic or there are additional

chemicals in the water that are not identified. If the sum of the TUs calculated from the

concentrations of the chemicals known to be present in the sample is lower than the number of

TUs in the ambient sample, and there may be additional, unquantified chemicals in the ambient

sample, it cannot be determined if synergy among chemicals is present. Given the probability for

unquantified chemical analyses performed by the Coalition on each sample, it is unlikely that true

synergy can be identified.

During the 2018 WY tributary monitoring events, no samples were toxic to C. dubia or P. promelas

and in sediment, no samples were toxic to H. azteca. Results related to toxicity to S. capricornutum

are not relevant to this analysis as algae toxicity is associated with herbicides, not with

insecticides that can be used as alternatives to chlorpyrifos or diazinon.


Demonstrate That Management Practices Are Achieving the Lowest Pesticide Levels Technically and Economically

Achievable

A determination of technical and economic feasibility of achieving the lowest pesticide levels

possible is assessed at the individual farm level, and consequently is expected to vary with the

specific operation and commodity farmed. The goal of the Coalition is for its members to

eliminate the discharge of pesticides to surface waters. The implementation of management

practices may be required to improve water quality. However, economic feasibility is determined

by factors outside the control of the Coalition. Profitable operations can afford to implement

expensive management practices such as sediment basins or pressurized irrigation. The

installation of sediment basins or pressurized irrigation can significantly reduce the offsite

movement of chemicals. However, marginally profitable operations may not be able to afford

these practices. Also, improving all farming operations is not possible through Coalition efforts as

there are growers in the Coalition region who are not members.

Exceedances of the WQO for chlorpyrifos have been in decline since 2008 when Focused

Outreach was initiated. In the 2018 WY, there was one exceedance of the WQO for chlorpyrifos

as compared to 31 in the 2008 WY.

Exceedances of the WQO for diazinon have not occurred in the Coalition region since the 2008

WY. Management practices implemented by growers are resulting in an overall reduction of

agricultural discharge to surface waters and growers are in the process of achieving the lowest

levels of detected pesticides technically and economically achievable.

Salt and Boron TMDL

The purpose of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River

Basins for the Control of Salt and Boron Discharges into the Lower San Joaquin River (hereafter,

Salt and Boron TMDL) is to manage salt and boron concentrations to achieve electrical

conductivity WQOs in the Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) at Vernalis that are protective of BUs in

the southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

In September 2004 the Regional Water Board adopted Phase 1 by amending the Basin Plan for

the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin to include the control program for salt

and boron discharges into the LSJR (approved by US EPA February 7, 2007). The amendments

established load allocations to meet the existing WQOs for salt and boron in the San Joaquin River

at Airport Way (Vernalis). The Regional Water Board adopted the Phase 2 amendment on June

xxx, 2017.

Phase 1 became effective in July 2006 with a phased compliance schedule that began in July 2014

and will be fully implemented by July 2026; Phase 2 is pending US EPA approval and, when

approved, will become effective in January 2020.

An additional amendment to the Basin Plan to include WQOs for salt and boron in the LSJR

upstream of the Airport Way Bridge near Vernalis to the mouth of the Merced River is currently

pending US EPA approval (adopted by Regional Water Board on June 9, 2017, State Water Board

on January 9, 2018, and Office of Administrative Law on April 19, 2018).


In an effort to address the salt and boron levels in the Central Valley, in 2006, the State Water

Board, Regional Water Board, and stakeholders formed the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives

for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS), a collaborative effort to develop and implement a

salinity and nitrate management program and Basin Plan Amendment. The Central Valley Salinity

Coalition (CVSC) formed in July 2008 to organize, facilitate, and fund efforts to fulfill goals of CV-

SALTS. On December 13, 2016, the SJCDWQC submitted a letter notifying the Regional Water

Board of the Coalition’s participation in the CV-SALTS program (informally approved on

December 14, 2016). In January 2017, CV-SALTS developed a Salt and Nitrate Management Plan

(SNMP), which was adopted by the Regional Water Board in March 2017 and used to develop

proposed amendments to the Basin Plan. Amendments to the Basin Plan were adopted by

Regional Water Board in May 2018 and are currently being reviewed by the State Water Board

and US EPA.

The export areas, where water is exported through State and Federal contracts, in the southern

and western Delta waterways and the San Joaquin River (Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary) are

within the SJCDWQC region and are 303(d) listed for salt (electrical conductivity). The Coalition

therefore applies the seasonal WQO of 700 µS/cm from April through August and 1,000 µS/cm

from September through March to all monitoring sites within the SJCDWQC boundary.

The Coalition recognizes that salt and nitrate water quality impairments are a Central Valley-wide

concern. The Coalition closely follows the planning and reviewing of studies relevant to the

development of a Basin Plan amendment for salt and participates in the efforts concerning the

Delta area in the CV-SALTS process. In addition, the Coalition monitors salt as SC in every zone

and nitrate in six zones (Table 88). The Coalition includes these constituents in general outreach

discussions with growers.

Table 88. SJCDWQC sites monitored for salts, measured as specific conductance (SC), and nitrate during the 2018 WY.

ZONE SITE NAME SC NITRATE + NITRITE

(AS N)

Zone 1 Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd C C

Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd F

Zone 2

French Camp Slough at Airport Way C C

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 F

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd F

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd F

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd F

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd F

Zone 3

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd C C

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd F RSM

Rindge Tract Drain F RSM

Staten Island Drain at Staten Island Rd F RSM

Terminous Tract Drain @ Hwy 12 F

Zone 4

Bacon Island Pump @ Old River C C

East Orwood Tract Drain F

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump F

South McDonald Island Pump F

Zone 5 Walthall Slough @ Woodward Ave C C

Zone 7 Union Island Drain @ Bonetti C C


ZONE SITE NAME SC NITRATE + NITRITE

(AS N)

Upper Roberts Island Drain F

Delta TMDL

San Joaquin River @ West Neugerbauer Rd F

Old River @ the West End of Clifton Court Rd F

Light House Restaurant @ West Brannon Island Rd F C–Constituent monitored as part of Core Site Monitoring. F–Constituent monitored as part of field parameter data collected at sites scheduled for MPM, RSM, and/or TMDL monitoring. RSM – Constituent monitored as part of Represented Site Monitoring.

Dissolved Oxygen TMDL

The US EPA approved Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River

and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control Program for Factors Contributing to the Dissolved

Oxygen Impairment in the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel (hereafter, DO Basin Plan

Amendment) on February 27, 2007 to address the low levels of DO in the Stockton Deep Water

Ship Channel (DWSC). The Regional Water Board identified three contributing factors to DO

impairments in the DWSC 1) loads of oxygen demanding substances from upstream sources, 2)

geometry of the DWSC, and 3) reduced flow through the DWSC. All factors are considered

equally responsible for reducing DO concentrations in the DWSC.

The Coalition reviews monitoring results for DO in the Stockton DWSC and tributaries to assess

compliance with the DO WQOs required in the TMDL. The DO Basin Plan Amendment specifies

that DO concentrations in the Stockton DWSC shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/L from

December through August and below 6.0 mg/L from September through November in the legal

boundaries of the Delta. The Coalition monitors for all field parameters including DO during all

scheduled monitoring events.

The Coalition reviewed monitoring data from the CDEC Rough and Ready Island station to

evaluate DO concentrations in the Stockton DWSC from October 2017 through September 2018

(Figure 31). This monitoring station is located within the Stockton DWSC and data from this site

are consistent with the Stockton DWSC Demonstration DO Aeration Facility reports (last

monthly report posted in June 2011 as of April 2, 2019

[http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/sdb/af/DWSC_monthly.cfm]). Measurements for DO occur at

the station during 15-minute-intervals via an auto sampler. The Rough and Ready island station

was not in operation during the August 2008 sampling event; therefore, no discharge

measurements were retrieved. As of October 2018, flow and velocity data are no longer being

collected at the Rough and Ready Island station.

In future, the Coalition will utilize DO measurements from a station downstream near Buckley

Cove, which is the suggested alternative flow and velocity station according to the CDEC

(http://cdec.water.ca.gov/jspplot/jspPlotServlet.jsp?sensor_no=9318&end=10%2F01%2F2018+

00%3A00&geom=huge&interval=365&cookies=cdec01. [Website last visited April 2, 2019]).

If a measurement of DO from one or more 15-minute events is less than the WQO, water quality is

defined as non-compliant for the day. Dissolved oxygen measurements from the CDEC Rough and

Ready Island station indicate the minimum DO value for the 2018 WY was 4.95 mg/L on August

15, 2018 and 5.73 mg/L on September 15, 2018. The August 15, 2018 DO level was below the


WQO established for the months between December and August and the September DO level

was below the WQO established for the months between September and November. Therefore,

there were two exceedances of the WQO for DO in the Stockton DWSC during the 2018 WY

(Figure 31).

However, the DO concentrations were within the WQO limitations when measured at tributaries

in Zone 2 on August 21, 2018 ranging from 5.35 to 10 mg/L. The September 18, 2018 DO

concentrations ranged from 2.39 to 6.71 mg/L at tributary site subwatersheds.


Figure 31. Rough and Ready Island (RRI) Dissolved Oxygen measurements and WQO during the 2018 WY. Dissolved oxygen is measured at the station on 15-minute intervals by an auto sampler.

Source: CA DWR: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/jspplot/jspPlotServlet.jsp?sensor_no=9318&end=10%2F01%2F2018+00%3A00&geom=huge&interval=365&cookies=cdec01. Data generated on April 2, 2019.


During the 2018 WY, the Coalition also reviewed DO monitoring results from six site

subwatersheds in Zone 2 tributaries, which contain agriculturally-influenced waterbodies that

could possibly drain to the Stockton DWSC (Table 89). Among the 35 DO measurements

conducted in Zone 2, there were 12 exceedances of the WQTL for DO (Table 89).

Table 89. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) monitoring results and WQO for tributary sites in Zone 2 during the 2017 WY.

DATE SITE NAME DISCHARGE

(CFS) OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (MG/L)

TEMPERATURE (C˚)

10/17/2017 French Camp Slough at Airport Way 87.01 8.85 14.5


Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 0 8.96 15.93


1/11/2018

French Camp Slough at Airport Way 21.56 6.22 10.5

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd NR 9.31 16

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 1.29 10.39 16.7


Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd NR 13.26 11.9

3/14/2018


Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 0 NR NR

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd 26.28 9.13 13.8


4/10/2018

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 NR [2.75] 18.5

French Camp Slough at Airport Way NR 7.24 21.8

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd 48.78 8.2 17.3


5/15/2018

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 32.09 6 18.8



6/19/2018

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 NR 6.02 24.1


Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd NR 6.67 25.4


7/17/2018

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 NR [2.03] 32.8

French Camp Slough at Airport Way 12.93 [4.35] 23.6

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd NR 6.4 28.3

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 0.46 7.33 28

8/21/2018

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 2.4 5.99 26.6


Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd NR 5.58 26

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 1.43 10 26.3

9/18/2018 Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 6.31 5.09 18.6



DATE SITE NAME DISCHARGE

(CFS) OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (MG/L)

TEMPERATURE (C˚)

Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd NR [2.39] 19.5

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd 6.8 [4.07] 18.3

Exceedances of the DO WQTL are highlighted in bold. Those exceedances of the DO WQO based on the DWSC criteria are in brackets []. NR – Not recorded

Due to the non-conserved nature of DO, and the complex interaction of factors that influence DO

concentrations, the causes of low DO are difficult to source. The Coalition attempted to

determine the sources of exceedances of the WQTLs for DO in a preliminary analysis (submitted

February 22, 2016). In addition, the Coalition includes discussions of DO water quality concerns

during general outreach to growers and encourages the implementation of management practices

designed to reduce the offsite movement of agricultural constituents such as fertilizers. The

Coalition will continue to participate in meetings and review technical documents as they become

available.

Methyl Mercury TMDL

On October 20, 2011, the US EPA approved the Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan

for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Methyl Mercury and

Total Mercury in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (hereafter, Methyl Mercury

Basin Plan Amendment). The Methyl Mercury Basin Plan Amendment program intends to reduce

the amount of methyl mercury in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and to implement through a

phased, adaptive management approach.

During Phase 1, stakeholders conduct studies and pilot projects to evaluate the effectiveness of

management practices to control methyl mercury production and release. The Regional Water

Board will evaluate the outcomes of Phase 1 during the Phase 1 Delta Mercury Control Program

Review, which has an expected completion date by October 20, 2020. Phase 2 begins after the

Phase 1 Delta Mercury Control Program Review is completed or after October 20, 2022

(whichever comes first) and ends in 2030.

The Delta Methyl Mercury TMDL Nonpoint Sources (NPS) Workgroup was formed to provide

NPS dischargers with an organizational structure to develop collaborative control studies and

carry out the actions dictated for Phase 1. Initial funding from a 319(h) planning grant was used to

identify the potential management practices and potential study sites, support development of

Control Study Work plans, and provide outreach and communications for the existing NPS

Workgroup. In April 2012, the Coalition submitted a letter confirming participation in the Phase 1

Methyl Mercury Control Studies through the Methyl Mercury Nonpoint Source Workgroup.

Coalition representatives participated in NPS Workgroup and Methyl Mercury TMDL for the

Delta Technical Advisory Committee (Methyl Mercury TAC) meetings throughout 2013, and

Coalition representative, Mike Wackman, served on the NPS Workgroup Steering Committee.

The NPS Workgroup submitted a Methyl Mercury Control Study Work plan on April 19, 2013.

Phase I Methyl Mercury Control Study Progress Reports were submitted to the Regional Water


Board in October 2015. Phase 2 Methyl Mercury Control Study Reports are expected to be

submitted to the Regional Water Board by October 2018.

According to an update for the Delta Mercury Control Program and TMDL posted by the Regional

Water Board on June 12, 2017

(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/delta_

hg/2017_0612_dhg_prog_update.pdf ), “Starting in 2018 staff will be reviewing available

information in preparation for the Phase 1 Delta Mercury Control Program review. The results of

these control studies will inform the program review as well as inform implementation of potential

methyl mercury control for Phase 2. Phase 2 will commence after the control program review,

(Regional) Board reconsideration of the TMDL, and an amendment to the Sacramento River and

San Joaquin River Basin Plan (Basin Plan). Phase 2 could include implementing methyl mercury

and mercury control programs, compliance monitoring, and upstream mercury/methyl mercury

control programs.”

No additional NPS Work Group meetings or deliverables were scheduled during the 2018 WY nor

have any been posted to the Regional Water Board website

(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/delta_hg/)

as of April 2, 2019. The Coalition will incorporate the outcomes of the mercury control plan into

its management plan so that members remain in compliance and continue to implement measures

to improve water quality.

The Delta Mercury Exposure Reduction Program (Delta MERP) is a multi-year effort to reduce

human exposure to mercury from eating fish caught in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The

SJCDWQC is a participant in the Delta MERP. The Delta MERP Strategy was released on

November 15, 2012 and the Delta MERP Work Plan was submitted in October 20, 2013. From

October 2014 through February 19, 2019, 10 Community Stakeholder Group meetings were held

at rotating locations in the Delta to focus on sustainability of Delta MERP goals and objectives

beyond the expenditure of funds under Agreement 14-025-150 between the Regional Water

Board and the Delta Conservancy. No Delta MERP meetings were held in the 2018 WY.

On October 3, 2017, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Resolution R5-

2017-0059, approving the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List of water quality limited

segments (WQLSs) portion of the 2014 and 2016 California Integrated Report. On February 5,

2018, the SWRCB submitted the 2014 and 2016 California Integrated Report [Clean Water Act

Sections 303(d) and 305(b)] to the USEPA. On April 6, 2018 the US EPA approved all WQLSs and

associated pollutants identified by the SWRCB as requiring a TMDL under CWA section 303(d).

In addition, the US EPA agreed with the delisting of 191 WQLSs based on approved TMDLs.

According to the SWRCB’s final Integrated Report, several waterbody/pollutants have been newly

delisted, including 45 within the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s

jurisdiction (Table 90).


Table 90. Proposed 2014 SWRCB Integrated Report de-listings from the 2012 Central Valley 303(d) List as related to waterbodies in the SJCDWQC. Changes listed in Appendix A of the CVRWQCB’s CWA Section 303(d) and 303(b) Integrated Report for the Central Valley Region, Final Staff Report.

WATER BODY POLLUTANT

DELIST FROM

“303(D) LIST (TMDL

REQUIRED LIST)”

CATEGORY

DELIST FROM “303(D) LIST

BEING ADDRESSED BY USEPA

APPROVED TMDL”

CATEGORY

Delta Waterways (Stockton Ship Channel) Indicator Bacteria

X

Marsh Creek (Marsh Creek Reservoir to San Joaquin River; partly in Delta Waterways, western

portion) Diazinon X


Electrical Conductivity

X


Indicator Bacteria

X

Temple Creek Electrical

Conductivity X

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/2014_int_rpt_dev/


SURFACE WATER EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

EFFECTIVENESS

The Coalition implemented its management plan process and Focused Outreach efforts from

2008 through the 2018 WY. The Coalition assesses MPM results from site subwatersheds where

Focused Outreach occurred in order to assess the efficacy of implemented management practices

in preventing the offsite movement of agricultural constituents.

The following evaluation determines if BUs are protected (‘Beneficial Uses’ section below), how

pesticide applications and monitoring results have changed over time (‘Trends in Coalition

Monitoring Data’ section), and what management practices in the Coalition region improved

water quality (‘Efficacy of Implemented Management Practices’ section).

BENEFICIAL USES

To address the first programmatic question in the WDR, ‘Are receiving waters to which irrigated

lands discharge meeting applicable water quality objectives and Basin Plan provisions?,’ the

Coalition analyzes monitoring data to determine if BUs are protected.

As outlined in the Basin Plan and WDR, waters of the State receiving discharge from irrigated

lands must be protective of all BUs including Agricultural Supply (AG), Aquatic Life (AQ, including

cold freshwater habitat spawning, warm freshwater habitat and freshwater habitat), Water

Contact Recreation (REC 1), and Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN or Municipal). In 2008,

the Regional Water Board developed a list of WQTLs based on numeric water quality objectives

and standards from the Basin Plan including interpretive narrative water quality objectives (Table

35). The WQTL list is used to determine exceedances and if BUs are impaired.

The Coalition assigned BUs to waterbodies in the SJCDWQC based on what BU has been assigned

to the immediate downstream waterbodies in the Basin Plan (tributary rule). The tributary rule

does not apply to constructed agricultural drains or pump stations, such as those found in the

Delta islands. Exceedances of constituent specific WQTLs that cause impairments to AG, AQ Life,

and MUN BUs can have multiple sources that may or may not result from agricultural practices.

Until all sources that impair BUs of waterbodies are identified and addressed, meeting all

objectives and Basin Plan provisions for the Waters of the State may be difficult to achieve.

Protection of Beneficial Uses in SJCDWQC Waterbodies

Waters of the State and BUs are considered protected if no exceedances of WQTLs occur during

monitoring events. Table 91 lists constituents that were detected above or outside of their

respective WQTLs during the 2018 WY and the BUs that are impaired by the exceedances. Figure

32 includes percentages of impaired BUs based on Coalition wide monitoring results from the

2018 WY. Not all constituents have a WQTL associated with a BU, such as pH. Therefore, these

constituents are not included in the assessment of BU protection.


The most common exceedances of WQTLs were field parameters (DO and SC) which resulted in

the impairment of AQ and AG BUs (Table 91 and Figure 32). There were numerous exceedances

of the WQTL for E. coli which resulted in the impairment of the REC 1 BU. The only constituent

monitored by the Coalition that causes impairment to the REC 1 BU is E. coli and is therefore not

included in the figures or discussion below (Table 91). The Coalition Management Plan Strategy is

not designed to address impairments due to exceedances of the WQTLs for field parameters (DO,

SC, and pH) and E. coli. As depicted in Table 92, although improvements are evident, water quality

is still not completely protective of all BUs across the Coalition region, in large part due to

exceedances of the WQTLs for field parameters and E. coli.

Table 91. Exceedances of WQOs and number of times BUs were impaired during the 2018 WY.

BENEFICIAL USE DO

SC

E. C

OLI

AM

MO

NIA

NIT

RA

TE

+ N

ITR

ITE

CH

LO

RP

YR

IFO

S

PY

RE

TH

RO

IDS

AR

SE

NIC

TO

TA

L

AQ Life 86 4 1 1 92

AG 24 24

MUN 4 1 5 10

REC 1 19 19 AQ Life-Aquatic Life (includes cold freshwater habitat spawning, warm freshwater habitat and freshwater habitat) AG-Agricultural MUN-Municipal and Domestic Supply REC 1-Water Contact Recreation

Figure 32. Percentages of impairments of BUs due to exceedances of WQOs during the 2018 WY. Aquatic Life includes all categories (cold freshwater habitat spawning, warm freshwater habitat and freshwater habitat).


Table 92. Evaluation of beneficial uses for 2008-2018 WY monitoring locations (alphabetical by Zone). ‘X’ indicates no sampling occurred during that year. Blue highlights indicate protected BUs in the 2017 WY when the same BU and monitoring site were impaired in one or more previous years.

ZO

NE

MONITORING SITE (YEARS OF FOCUSED

OUTREACH)

IMMEDIATE

DOWNSTREAM

WATERBODY

BENEFICIAL

USE IMMEDIATE

DOWNSTREAM

WATERBODY

STATUS

2008

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2009

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2010

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2011

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2012

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2013

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2014

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2015 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2016 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2017 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2018 WY

MEETS

BUS?

1

Bear Creek @ North Alpine Rd

(2013-2015)

Sacramento San Joaquin

Delta

MUN Yes X X Yes Yes Yes Yes X X Yes Yes

AG Yes X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

REC 1 No X X No X X X X X No No

AQ Life Yes X X No No Yes No No No No No

Coyote Creek Tributary @ Jack Tone

Rd


Delta

MUN X X X X X X X X X X X

AG X X X X X X X Yes Yes X X

REC 1 X X X X X X X X X X X

AQ Life X X X X X X X No No X X

Jahant Slough @ Cherokee Ln


Delta


AG X X X X X X X Yes Yes Yes X


AQ Life X X X X X X X No No No X

Mokelumne River @ Bruella Rd

(2011-2013)

Mokelumne River

(Camanche Res to Delta Reach)

MUN Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X X

AG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

REC 1 Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No X X

AQ Life No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mosher Creek @ North Alpine Rd


Delta


AG X X X X X X X Yes Yes Yes X


AQ Life X X X X X X X No No No X

Pixley Slough @ Furry Sacramento San Joaquin

Delta


AG X X X X X X X Yes Yes X X


AQ Life X X X X X X X No No X X

2

Duck Creek @ Hwy 4 (2008-2010), (2017-2019)


Delta

MUN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X

AG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

REC 1 Yes X X X No X X X X X X

AQ Life No No No No No No No No No No No

French Camp Slough @ Airport Way (2011-2013), (2016-2018)


Delta

MUN No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

AG Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

REC 1 No No No No No No No No No No No


Littlejohns Creek @ Jack Tone Rd

San Joaquin Delta

MUN Yes X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

AG Yes X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


ZO

NE


OUTREACH)

IMMEDIATE

DOWNSTREAM

WATERBODY

BENEFICIAL

USE IMMEDIATE

DOWNSTREAM

WATERBODY

STATUS

2008

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2009

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2010

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2011

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2012

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2013

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2014

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2015 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2016 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2017 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2018 WY

MEETS

BUS?

(2010-2012) REC 1 Yes X X X X X X X X X X

AQ Life No X No No No No No No Yes Yes No

Lone Tree Creek @ Jack Tone Rd (2008-2010), (2016-2018)


Delta

MUN No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X

AG No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

REC 1 No X X X X X X X X X X

AQ Life No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes

Mormon Slough @ Jack Tone Rd

(2012-2014), (2017-2019)


Delta

MUN No X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

AG Yes X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

REC 1 Yes X X X X X X X X X X

AQ Life No X X No No No No No No No No

Unnamed Drain to Lone Tree Creek @

Jack Tone Rd (2008-2010), (2016-2018)


Delta

MUN No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

AG No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes



3

Drain @ Woodbridge Rd

(2014-2016)


Delta

MUN No No No X X Yes No X Yes No No

AG No No No X X Yes Yes No No No No

REC 1 No Yes No X X X X X X No No

AQ Life No No No X X No No No No No No

Empire Tract @ 8 Mile Rd

(2018-2020)


Delta

MUN X X X X X No No X X Yes Yes

AG X X X X X No No No No No No

REC 1 X X X X X No No X X X X

AQ Life X X X X X No No No No No No

Rindge Tract Drain (2019-2121)


Delta

MUN X X X X X X X X X Yes Yes

AG X X X X X X X No No No No


AQ Life X X X X X X X No No No No


(2018-2020)


Delta

MUN X X X X X X X X X No No





(2011-2013), (2016-2018)


Delta

MUN No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes

AG No No No No No No No No No No No

REC 1 No No No No No No No No No X X


4 Bacon Island Pump @

Old River

MUN X X X X X X No X Yes No No

AG X X X X X X No No No No No


ZO

NE


OUTREACH)

IMMEDIATE

DOWNSTREAM

WATERBODY

BENEFICIAL

USE IMMEDIATE

DOWNSTREAM

WATERBODY

STATUS

2008

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2009

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2010

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2011

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2012

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2013

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2014

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2015 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2016 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2017 WY

MEETS

BUS?

STATUS

2018 WY

MEETS

BUS?

(2019-2121) Sacramento San Joaquin

Delta

REC 1 X X X X X X No X X No No

AQ Life X X X X X X No No No No No


(2018-2020)


Delta

MUN X X X X X X X X Yes X X

AG X X X X X X X No No X No


AQ Life X X X X X X X No No X No

Kellogg Creek along Hoffman Ln

(2012-2014)


Delta

MUN No X X Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X

AG Yes X X No Yes Yes No Yes X X X

REC 1 Yes X X X X X X X X X X

AQ Life No X X No* No Yes No Yes X X X

Roberts Island @ Whiskey Slough Pump

(2013-2015)


Delta

MUN X X X X No Yes No No Yes X X

AG X X X X No No No No No No No

REC 1 X X X X No Yes No No No X X

AQ Life X X X X No No No No No No No

South McDonald Island Pump

(2019-2121)


Delta

MUN X X X X X X X X Yes X X

AG X X X X X X X No No X Yes


AQ Life X X X X X X X No No X No

5 Walthall Slough @

Woodward Ave (2013-2015)


Delta

MUN X No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

AG X No No No No No No No No No Yes

REC 1 X No No No Yes Yes No No No No No

AQ Life X No No No No No No No No No No

6 Sand Creek @ Hwy 4

Bypass (2012-2014)


Delta

MUN No X X No No Yes Yes Yes X X X

AG No X X No No No No No No X X


AQ Life No X X No No No No No Yes X X

7


(2017-2019)


Delta

MUN X X X X X X X No No No No


REC 1 X X X X X X X No No No No


Upper Roberts Island Drain

(2019-2121)


Delta





X - Site was not scheduled for sampling during the WY. *Does not meet BUs requirements due to sediment toxicity to H. azteca in one or more occurrences.


TRENDS IN COALITION MONITORING DATA

To address the third programmatic question in the WDR, ‘Are water quality conditions changing

over time?’, the Coalition analyzed for trends in monitoring data, both temporally and spatially.

Data from 2008 represent water quality in the Coalition region at the beginning of focused

outreach when growers began implementing management practices designed to improve water

quality. Monitoring data from the 2018 WY reflect water quality after 10 years of focused

outreach. The Coalition analyzed these data for two types of trends, 1) temporal trends

(consistent water quality impairments across time, i.e. same months and/or seasons), and 2) spatial

trends (consistent water quality impairments in a specific area).

Temporal Trends

The temporal trend analysis (2008 through 2018 WY monitoring data) is performed to assess if

exceedances occur less frequently since education and Focused Outreach began. The Coalition

analyzed monitoring data for the two primary groups of constituents applied by agriculture:

applied metals (copper and zinc) and pesticides.

Monitoring during the 2018 WY resulted in exceedances of pesticides and metals: chlorpyrifos

(1), bifenthrin (1), and arsenic (5). As indicated in the ‘Surface Water Monitoring Results’ section

of this report, most exceedances in the Coalition region were nutrients, E. coli, and field

parameters. Consequently, the Coalition conducted preliminary analyses to evaluate these water

quality parameters and their sources and submitted the results to the Regional Water Board.

Applied Metals: 2008 – 2018 WY

Metals applied by agriculture in the Coalition region include copper and zinc; however, Table 93

includes only copper exceedances because copper was the only applied metal to be detected

above the hardness based WQTL at sites in the Coalition region from 2008 through September

2018.

There was a sharp decrease in exceedances of applied metals after 2008 (Figure 33). During the

2018 WY, there were no exceedances of the hardness based WQTL for any applied metal (arsenic

is not applied by agriculture) in the Coalition region. Currently, all management plans for applied

metals at sites within the Coalition boundary have been approved for completion.

Pesticides: 2008 – 2018 WY

The Coalition samples for a suite of pesticides (as outlined in the 2018 WY MPU). This analysis

included pesticides with the greatest applications in the Coalition region: chlorpyrifos, diazinon,

diuron, and simazine. Beginning in the 2018 WY, the Coalition assessed the need to monitor for

pesticides based on the Regional Water Board’s Pesticide Evaluation Protocol (PEP). As outlined

in the 2018 WY MPU, the PEP evaluates the potential for monitoring based on pesticide use,

chemical environmental fate, and monitoring history. As a result, in the 2018 WY, the Coalition

monitored for 36 pesticides that included, but not limited to, carbamate, dinitroaniline,

organophosphate, neonicotinoid, pyrethroid pesticides. Of the 36 pesticides monitored in the

2018 WY, 25 were pesticides for which the Coalition has not previously monitored. Additionally,


the Regional Water Board has not set trigger limits for these pesticides (outside of pyrethroids).

Therefore, the Coalition cannot yet establish temporal trends. The Coalition will attempt to

establish any trends in pesticide use and detections once three years of data are accrued.

Similar to applied metals, water quality improved directly after the initiation of focused outreach

in 2008 (Figure 33 and Table 93). The percentage of samples with concentrations in exceedance

of pesticide WQTLs before Focused Outreach in 2008 was 2.2% of all samples collected, as

compared to most recently during the 2018 WY at 0.5% (Table 93). Water quality conditions have

improved for pesticides as evidenced by the completion of 24 management plans for pesticides.

Overall, the analysis of monitoring data for metals and pesticides indicate a general improvement

in water quality over time. In some cases, water quality impairments may occur in site

subwatersheds after focused outreach occurred. The Coalition will continue to address recent

water quality impairment in accordance with the 2015 Revised Management Plan, and focused

outreach will continue to be an emphasis of the management plan strategy.


Table 93. Percentages of exceedances of WQTLs for applied metals and pesticides from 2008 - 2018 WY.

*Indicates monitoring from January through September only.

Figure 33. Percentages of exceedances of WQTLs from 2008 through 2018 WY. The bar graph includes percentages of exceedances of constituents grouped as ‘pesticides’ or ‘applied metals’.

YEARS

APPLIED METALS PESTICIDES

Total Exceedances Total Samples Percent

Exceedances Total

Exceedances Total Sampled Percent Exceedances

2008 9 234 3.8% 40 1,827 2.2%

2009 0 148 0.0% 8 711 1.1%

2010 2 194 1.0% 11 802 1.4%

2011 2 234 0.9% 18 900 2.0%

2012 1 84 1.2% 2 315 0.6%

2013 0 88 0.0% 3 545 0.6%

2014* 0 51 0.0% 3 711 0.4%

2015 WY 0 30 0.0% 12 1,893 0.6%

2016 WY 0 30 0.0% 5 2,093 0.2%

2017 WY 0 27 0.0% 4 1922 0.2%

2018 WY 0 65 0.0% 2 358 0.5%


Spatial Trends

The Coalition evaluated historical monitoring data to identify potential spatial trends and patterns

in surface water quality associated with discharge from irrigated lands in the 2015 Annual Report

(submitted May 1, 2015 and summarized in the May 1, 2016 Annual Report). The Coalition

reviewed monitoring data in an attempt to identify any spatial trends in water quality impairments

in a specific geographical region. The Coalition could not associate an observable relationship

between exceedances and any geographical region.

EFFICACY OF IMPLEMENTED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

In order to address water quality impairments in the Coalition region, growers are encouraged to

implement management practices designed to reduce discharge. During the 2018 WY, the

Coalition documented management practices implemented by members through two means: 1)

FEs and 2) Focused Outreach survey results. In addressing the fifth programmatic question, ‘Are

implemented management practices effective in meeting applicable receiving water limitations?’,

the Coalition evaluated management practices implemented by growers in association with

changes in water quality over time.

A primary indicator of management practice effectiveness is the improvement in water quality

immediately after the initiation of focused outreach in 2008. Since the initiation of focused

outreach, there has been a significant reduction in the number of water quality impairments, as

indicated in the ‘Temporal Trends’ section (Figure 33). The Coalition conducts Focused Outreach

with members to track and advocate the implementation of management practices that are

designed to reduce irrigation and stormwater runoff. Until the Coalition region has 100% of the

irrigated acreage enrolled under a membership, management practices implemented by members

of the Coalition may not be enough to improve water quality due to discharges by non-members

who have not implemented similar practices. In addition, managing constituents that are non-

conserved or naturally occurring in the environment (field parameters, salts, and some metals) is

beyond the scope of what the Coalition can achieve through management practice

implementation.

Another primary indicator of management practice effectiveness is the that the Coalition

continues to be approved for the completion of management plans. The Coalition has successfully

petitioned to complete 81 management plans since 2012 (including management plans at sites no

longer active). Furthermore, the Coalition has completed all management plans for copper,

diazinon, dieldrin, disulfoton, malathion, simazine, water column toxicity to P. promelas, and all but

one management plan each for lead, diuron, water column toxicity to C. dubia and sediment

toxicity to H. azteca.


MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT

As stated on Page 10 of the WDR, environmental impacts may occur as a result of member

compliance activities. Members are therefore required to either avoid impacts where feasible or

implement identified mitigation measures, if any, to reduce potential impacts. Where avoidance

or implementation of identified mitigation is not feasible, use of the WDR is prohibited and

individual WDRs are required. Any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation

measures implemented and reported by SJCDWQC members (including the impact measures

addressed, location (TRS), and monitoring scheduled to measure the success of mitigation) would

be reported May 1 annually (MRP Order; Attachment B). There were no implemented mitigation

measures reported by Coalition members during the 2018 WY.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring results from the 2018 WY indicate that although water quality is improving; however,

several waterbodies in the Coalition region are still not protective of all BUs. The most common

BU impairments involved constituents for which irrigated agriculture may not be the primary

contributor, such as field parameters and E. coli. Field parameters are non-conserved in nature

and sources of the exceedances are difficult to track.

The Coalition encourages growers to implement management practices to address water quality

impairments and growers continue to implement new practices. These management practices are

designed to reduce the impact of agricultural practices on water quality. Therefore, managing

constituents that are non-conserved or naturally occurring in the environment (field parameters,

salts, and some metals) is beyond the scope of what the Coalition can achieve through

management practice implementation alone.

Overall, water quality in the Coalition region is improving. The management practices

implemented by growers have been effective in reducing water quality impairments, as indicated

by the completion of 81 management plans (count includes management plans completed at

inactive site subwatersheds; there are 74 completed management plans in active site

subwatersheds) since the initiation of focused outreach. Recurring water quality impairments

may occur due to changes to land ownership and/or lease agreements. These changes may lead to

new members and/or members who haven’t received focused outreach. The Coalition will

continue working with members to improve water quality through focused outreach and

education.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Coalition identified several areas in which CVRWQCB involvement could result in

improvement in water quality in the Coalition region:

• Identify and regulate dairies in site subwatersheds that are using constituents of concern which may affect the BUs of downstream waterbodies.

• Develop and deploy methods to monitor illegal dairy discharges and notify the Coalition of any known dairy discharges that may result in water quality impairments including nutrient and E. coli exceedances.

• Continue enforcement actions against non-members who have the potential to discharge. • Move forward with the processes to develop plans to study contamination of surface waters

by E. coli, causes of elevated pH, and low DO. • Continue to work with the CV-SALTS process to develop a better understanding of the

sources and sinks of salt in surface and groundwater and potential practices that can be effective in preventing exceedances.


REFERENCES

Amweg, E. L., Weston, D. P., and Ureda, N. M. (2005). Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Burow, K. R., Jurgens, B., Dubrovsky, N. M., and Belitz, K. (2004). Regional Assessment of Arsenic Concentrations in Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Land Use Viewer (https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/).

California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) Discharge from CDEC Stations (http://cdec.water.ca.gov)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. June 12, 2017. Delta Mercury Control Program and TDML. (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/delta_hg/2017_0612_dhg_prog_update.pdf)

Moran, J. E., Singleton, M. J., McNab, W. M., Leif, R., and Esser, B. K. (2009). California GAMA Program: Tracking Water Quality Changes during Groundwater Banking at Two Sites in San Joaquin County. Prepared in cooperation with the State of California State Water Resources Control Board.

Pesticide Action Network, Online Database, (http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Search_Chemicals.jsp).

San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Coalition. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2018, from SJDeltaWatershed.org: http://www.sjdeltawatershed.org/

Stockton DWSC Demonstration DO Aeration Facility reports (last monthly report posted in June 2011 as of April 2, 2019 [http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/sdb/af/DWSC_monthly.cfm]).

University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (UC IPM; http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html)

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009). Natural Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from Census and Survey

Research Branch: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Retrieved February 13, 2014 from, Terminology Services: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/sterms.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Retrieved December 16, 2014 from Technology Transfer Network: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/dichlorv.html

the attached documents report on the coalition’s ... · phone (209) 851-4204...

Documents