Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)
Water Body ID:	CAR5081000019990126144739
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	4125	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Cadmium
Final Listing Decision:	Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Reason for Delisting:	Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified
TMDL Name:	Upper Sacramento River Cadmium, Copper and Zinc TMDL
TMDL Project Code:	1208
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	06/27/2002
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 samples exceeded the chronic or acute criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4125, Cadmium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

2583

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4125, Cadmium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

22838

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty-one samples were taken from the Sacramento River at Calwell Park after the completion of the Slickrock Creek Dam. Zero exceedances of the acute or chronic WQO were observed.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Water Sampling Data for 303(d) Listing/Delisting Process. Letter W-101-200-000 and data files

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula e(0.7852*ln(hardness)-2.715))x(1.101672-(ln(hardness)x0.041838)) which incorporates hardness.Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) - Maximum Contaminant Level Acute WQO based on the following formula e((1.160)x(ln(hardness) - 5.777)) which incorporates hardness.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected in one location at the Caldwell Park Boat Ramp on the Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and Cottonwood Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly from June 2004 to December 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Frontier Geosciences; Data quality requirements acceptable. City of Redding monitoring QAP (Redding, 2007)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4124	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Copper
Final Listing Decision:	Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Reason for Delisting:	Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified
TMDL Name:	Upper Sacramento River Cadmium, Copper and Zinc TMDL
TMDL Project Code:	1208
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	06/27/2002
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 samples exceeded the chronic or acute criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4124, Copper	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

22839

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty-one samples were taken from the Sacramento River at Calwell Park after the completion of the Slickrock Creek Dam. Zero exceedances of the acute or chronic WQO were observed.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Water Sampling Data for 303(d) Listing/Delisting Process. Letter W-101-200-000 and data files

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula e(0.8545*ln(hardness)-1.702))x(0.96) which incorporates hardness.Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) - Maximum Contaminant Level Acute WQO based on the following formula e((0.905)x(ln(hardness) - 1.612)) which incorporates hardness.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected in one location at the Caldwell Park Boat Ramp on the Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and Cottonwood Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly from June 2004 to December 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Frontier Geosciences; Data quality requirements acceptable. City of Redding monitoring QAP (Redding, 2007)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4124, Copper	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

2582

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4070	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Reason for Delisting:	Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified
TMDL Name:	Upper Sacramento River Cadmium, Copper and Zinc TMDL
TMDL Project Code:	1208
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	06/27/2002
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 samples exceeded the chronic or acute criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4070, Zinc	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

2584

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4070, Zinc	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

22840

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty-one samples were taken from the Sacramento River at Calwell Park after the completion of the Slickrock Creek Dam. Zero exceedances of the acute or chronic WQO were observed.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Water Sampling Data for 303(d) Listing/Delisting Process. Letter W-101-200-000 and data files

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula e(0.8473*ln(hardness)+0.884))x(0.986) which incorporates hardness.Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) - Maximum Contaminant Level Acute WQO based on the following formula e((0.830)x(ln(hardness) - 0.289)) which incorporates hardness.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected in one location at the Caldwell Park Boat Ramp on the Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and Cottonwood Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly from June 2004 to December 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Frontier Geosciences; Data quality requirements acceptable. City of Redding monitoring QAP (Redding, 2007)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	7158	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-five of 65 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia (survival or reproductive toxicity) exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Six of 33 samples tested with Pimephales (survival or growth toxicity) exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. In addition, 1 of 44 samples tested with Selenastrum exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 6. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7158, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

4513

Pollutant:

Unknown Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7158, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

26219

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven-day survival toxicity tests were conducted with Pimephales promelas. Three of the 33 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of the test results by year.

Survival Endpoint
1998-1999
None of the 12 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control.

2003-2004
One of the 4 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 27 July 2004 (75% mortality).

2006-2007
Two of the 17 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (survival reported as a percentage of control response is provided in parentheses): 12 December 2006 (40) and 9 February 2007 (21). The test results reported for 20 September 2006 were those of a re-test (SRWP 2008). The test organisms in the site water collected on 25 April 2007 exhibited pathogen-related mortalities and were excluded from evaluation of ambient toxicity (SRWP 2008). The 25 April 2007 sampling event was not included in this assessment.

Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) were conducted using the 12 December 2006 sample. Although persistent during the TIEs, the magnitude of the toxicity decreased. Toxicity was removed by the C-8 Solid Phase Extraction treatment. This suggests that dissolved non-polar organic contaminants caused the toxicity (SRWP 2008). No analyte list pesticides were detected in this sample (SRWP 2008). The sample was extracted for organic analyses ~2.5 days after sample collection (SRWP 2008).

Phase I TIEs were also conducted using the 9 February 2007 sample. Although persistent during the TIEs, the onset of toxicity was delayed. Toxicity was removed by the centrifugation and Chelex column extraction. This suggests that particulate associated contaminants and/or divalent cations caused the toxicity (SRWP 2008). No analyte list pesticides were detected in the sample (SRWP 2008). The sample was extracted for organic analyses ~6.5 days after sample collection (SRWP 2008).

Data Reference:

Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database 1991-2003. Davis, CA

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control with 7-day survival toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as a statistically significant (p<0.5) increase in mortality (≥20%) compared to the laboratory control.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

All samples were collected from the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam.

Temporal Representation:

1998 -1999: Samples were collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999.
2003 - 2004: Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (20 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (3 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (9 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (27 July 2004).
2006-2007: Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP 1999a, 1999b, 2003, 2006). The test results reported for 20 September 2006 were those of a re-test (SRWP 2008). The test organisms in the site water collected on 25 April 2007 exhibited pathogen-related mortalities and were excluded from evaluation of ambient toxicity (SRWP 2008). The 25 April 2007 sampling event was not included in this assessment.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7158, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

22825

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four-day growth tests were conducted with Selenastrum capricornutum in association with Sacramento River Watershed Program annual monitoring activities. One of the 44 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth as compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of test results by year.1998-1999None of the 12 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth (cell numbers) as compared to the laboratory control.1999-2000One of the 10 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth (cell numbers) as compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 15 February 2002 (66% of control). 2003-2004None of the 4 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth (cell numbers) as compared to the laboratory control. 2006-2007None of the 18 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth as compared to the laboratory control. The results reported for the sample collected on 6 July 2006 were those of a re-test (SRWP 2008).

Data Reference:

Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database 1991-2003. Davis, CA

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control with a short-term chronic (4-day) growth test.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

1998-1999: Samples were collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999.
1999-2000: Samples were collected monthly from June 1999 through February 2002, and in May 2000.
2003-2004: Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (20 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (3 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (9 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (27July 2004).
2006-2007: Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

All samples were collected from the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam.

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7158, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

22796

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven-day survival toxicity tests were conducted with Ceriodaphnia dubia in association with Sacramento River Watershed Program annual monitoring activities. Four of the 65 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of toxicity test results by year.Survival Endpoint1998-1999None of the 12 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control.1999-2000None of the 12 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. 2000-2001One of the 9 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 30 October 2000 (70% mortality). 2001-2002One of the 4 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 24 September 2001 (100% mortality).2002-2003None of the 6 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. 2003-2004None of the 4 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. 2006-2007Two of the 18 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (survival reported as percentage of control response provided in parentheses): 12 December 2006 (initial test - 0, immediate retest - 11), and 14 March 2007 (33). It should be noted that of the 12 water samples collected from across the watershed during this sampling event (December 2006), 11 caused complete mortality of the test organisms in the initial test.Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) were conducted using the 12 December 2006 sample. Although persistent during the TIEs, the toxicity was delayed and its magnitude was decreased. Toxicity was removed by the following TIE treatments: C-8 Solid Phase Extraction and piperonyl butoxide (PBO). This suggests that dissolved non-polar organic contaminants and metabolically-activated substances, or a substance with both properties, caused the toxicity (SRWP 2008).Phase I TIEs were also conducted using the 14 March 2007 sample. Although persistent during the TIEs, the toxicity was delayed and its magnitude was decreased. Toxicity was removed by the centrifugation and PBO treatments. This suggests that particulate-associated contaminants and metabolically-activated substances, or a substance with both properties, caused the toxicity (SRWP 2008).

Data Reference:

Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database 1991-2003. Davis, CA

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control with 7-day survival toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as mortality (=20%) that is statistically different from controls at the 95% confidence level.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

All samples were collected from the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam.

Temporal Representation:

1998-1999: Samples were collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999.
1999-2000: Samples were collected monthly from June 1999 through May 2000.
2000-2001: Samples were collected on 19 July 2000, 19 September 2000, 17 October 2000, 30 October 2000, 26 January 2001, 7 February 2001, 8 April 2001, 29 May 2001, and 21 June 2001.
2001-2002: Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: late dry season, low flows (24 September 2001); seasonal first-flush storm (31 October 2001); significant rainfall of >0.5 inches, organophosphate pesticide application period (18 February 2002); and rice field discharge period, late wet season (14 May 2002).
2002-2003: Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: late dry season, low flows (1 October 2002); first significant storm event of season (8 November 2002); significant rain event (15 February 2003), late wet season, rain events (13 March 2003 and 3 April 2003); and rice field discharge season, dry weather event (9 June 2003).
2003-2004: Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (20 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (3 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (9 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (27 July 2004).
2006-2007: Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7158, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

22810

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven-day reproduction toxicity tests were conducted with Ceriodaphnia dubia in association with Sacramento River Watershed Program annual monitoring activities. Twenty one (21) of the 65 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of toxicity test results by year.Reproduction Endpoint1998-1999Five of the 12 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. Toxic samples were collected on the following dates (percent of control in parentheses): 22 July 1998 (14), 19 August 1998 (63), 16 September 1998 (44), 21 October 1998 (43), and 17 November 1998 (54).1999-2000Three of the 12 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. Toxic samples were collected on the following dates (percent of control in parentheses): 18 August 1999 (76), 22 September 1999 (71), and 15 November 1999 (54). 2000-2001Two of the 9 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. Toxic samples were collected on the following dates: 19 July 2000 and 7 February 2001. The data summary does not provide the corresponding data for the control associated with each test, but rather provides the range of data for separate controls associated multiple tests. Therefore, percent of control was not calculated.2001-2002One of the 4 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 14 May 2002. Percent of control not included for same reason as 2000-2001 monitoring summary. 2002-2003Four of the 6 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. Toxic samples were collected on the following dates: 1 October 2002, 15 February 2003, 13 March 2003, and 9 June 2003. Percent of control not included for same reason as 2000-2001 monitoring summary. 2003-2004Three of the 4 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. Toxic samples were collected on the following dates: 3 February 2004, 9 June 2004, and 27 July 2004. Percent of control not included for same reason as 2000-2001 monitoring summary.2006-2007Three of the 18 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (percentage of control response provided in parentheses): 6 July 2006 (65), 9 February 2007 (67), and 25 April 2007 (32).

Data Reference:

Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database 1991-2003. Davis, CA

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control with 7-day reproduction toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as decreased reproduction that is statistically different from controls at the 95% confidence level.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

All samples were collected from the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 7158, Unknown Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

26220

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven-day growth toxicity tests were conducted with Pimephales promelas. Three of the 33 samples exhibited significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Growth endpoints for P. promelas were not statistically compared to control results if survival endpoints were significantly less than the controls. The following is a summary of the test results by year.

Growth Endpoint
1998-1999
One of the 12 samples exhibited significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 17 March 1999 (77% of control).

2003-2004
None of the 4 samples were reported as exhibiting significant reduction in growth as compared to the laboratory control.

2006-2007
Two of the 17 samples exhibited significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (percent of control in parentheses): 9 November 2006 (81) and 6 June 2007 (64). The test results reported for 20 September 2006 were those of a re-test (SRWP 2008). The test organisms in the site water collected on 25 April 2007 exhibited pathogen-related mortalities and were excluded from evaluation of ambient toxicity (SRWP 2008). The 25 April 2007 sampling event was not included in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database 1991-2003. Davis, CA

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control with 7-day growth toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as a statistically significant (p<0.5) reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

All samples were collected from the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam.

Temporal Representation:

1998 -1999: Samples were collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999.
2003 - 2004: Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (20 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (3 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (9 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (27 July 2004).
2006 - 2007: Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):