Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)
Water Body ID:	CAR5192100020021209150207
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	38531	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

Pollutant:	Mercury
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)(2012)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Eight of the eight samples exceed the evaluation guideline. LOE 22628 was not used in the final listing decision due to the criterion change. The data in LOE 22628 were reassessed in LOE 95513 with the new criterion. LOE 95513 was used in the final listing decision. Additionally, LOE 22629 was not used in the final listing decision due to the criterion change. The data in LOE 22629 were reassessed in LOE 95516 with the new criterion. LOE 95516 was used in the final listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Eight of the eight samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 38531, Mercury	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

LOE ID:

95513

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from this reach. A total of 6 out of 6 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.54 ppm for all 6 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species:

Largemouth Bass- 3 composite samples, 0.60-0.68 ppm (average 0.64 ppm), 3 exceedances;
Striped Bass- 1 sample, 0.81 ppm, 1 exceedance;
White Catfish- 2 composite samples, 0.21 ppm, 0.29 ppm, 2 exceedances.

All 6 composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The U.S. EPA 304(a)-recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/Kg.

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at one location from this reach of Steelhead Creek just downstream of the El Camino Avenue bridge crossing.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were collected during three sampling events conducted during 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Steelhead Creek watershed (USGS, 2005).

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Sacramento River Watershed Program QAPP prepared by Larry Walker Associates (LWA, 1998; LWA, 1999; LWA, 2000).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 38531, Mercury	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

LOE ID:

95516

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from this reach. A total of 2 out of 2 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.23 ppm for the 2 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species:

Carp- one 3-fish composite sample, 0.20 ppm, 1 exceedance;
Sacramento Sucker- one 3-fish composite sample, 0.26 ppm, 1 exceedance.

Both composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families.

Data Reference:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program: Freshwater Bioaccumulation Monitoring: TSM Program Data 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The U.S. EPA 304(a)-recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/Kg.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at one location from this reach of Steelhead Creek just downstream of the El Camino Ave. bridge crossing.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were collected during one sampling event on 5/15/1985.

Environmental Conditions:

Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Steelhead Creek watershed (USGS, 2005).

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for the fish sampling, tissue preparation, mercury analysis, and QA sample analysis portions of this study was conducted as described in the Toxic Substance Monitoring Report for 1985 (Rasmussen et al., 1987).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 38531, Mercury	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

LOE ID:

22629

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from this reach. A total of 0 out of 2 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.23 ppm for the 2 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Carp- one 3-fish composite sample, 0.20 ppm, no exceedances; Sacramento Sucker- one 3-fish composite sample, 0.26 ppm, no exceedances. Both composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families.

Data Reference:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program: Freshwater Bioaccumulation Monitoring: TSM Program Data 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality

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. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health. This is the concentration in fish tissue that should not be exceeded based on a total fish and shellfish consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg fish/day. (USEPA, 2001)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at one location from this reach of Steelhead Creek just downstream of the El Camino Ave. bridge crossing.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were collected during one sampling event on 5/15/1985.

Environmental Conditions:

Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Steelhead Creek watershed (USGS, 2005).

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 38531, Mercury	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

LOE ID:

22628

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from this reach. A total of 4 out of 6 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.54 ppm for all 6 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Largemouth Bass- 3 composite samples, 0.60-0.68 ppm (average 0.64 ppm), 3 exceedances; Striped Bass- 1 sample, 0.81 ppm, 1 exceedance; White Catfish- 2 composite samples, 0.21 ppm, 0.29 ppm, no exceedances. All 6 composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families.

Data Reference:

Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at one location from this reach of Steelhead Creek just downstream of the El Camino Avenue bridge crossing.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were collected during three sampling events conducted during 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Steelhead Creek watershed (USGS, 2005).

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program


DECISION ID	40576	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected Attainment Date:	2026
Implementation Action Other than TMDL:	This water body segment-pollutant combination is being addressed through Basin Plan requirements established under CRWQCB-CVR resolution R5-20140041, and implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural discharges. The sources of diazinon to this segment have been identified as offsite movement of diazinon from diazinon applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The Basin Plan identifies numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for diazinon as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of diazinon into surface water. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are achieved.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This water body - pollutant combination is being considered for removal from the 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. No new data or information was available for the 2014 cycle. Under section 4.11, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The evidence indicates that diazinon concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but existing pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards because the impairment is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record for this water body and pollutant combination; it is a placeholder for a decision made before 2006, when the database became available for tracking data and information. There is insufficient information to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 4. The sources of diazinon to this water body segment have been identified as offsite movement of diazinon from diazinon applications by the agricultural dischargers, who are regulated under enforceable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 5. In 2016, the Board adopted Resolution R5-2014-0041 establishing Basin Plan amendments that primarily address the regulation of agricultural pesticide runoff and discharges of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Central Valley which are implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural dischargers. The amendments established numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and a control program to ensure that the objectives will be attained within a reasonable, specified time frame. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for diazinon as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 6. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of diazinon into surface water. 7. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 8. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information described in the lines of evidence associated with this decision, the Regional Water Board determined that this water body and pollutant combination is still impaired and that it should be listed as being addressed by another regulatory program that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame because an alternative State regulatory program is in place which can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:	The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for diazinon as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 6. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of diazinon into surface water. 7. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 8. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 40576, Diazinon	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

LOE ID:

4492

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Unspecified

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Unspecified

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	35070	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2020
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 35070, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (aka Steelhead Creek, downstream of confluence with Arcade Creek)

LOE ID:

4493

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):