Final California 2018 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	68606	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:	Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
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 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 34 samples exceeded the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the one samples exceeded the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of the zero samples exceeded the water column criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 34 samples exceeded the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the one samples exceeded the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of the zero samples exceeded the water column criteria for MUN. 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:	The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. 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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68606, 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 68606, 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 Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

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 68606, Cadmium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69692

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. 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 and San Joaquin River Basins).

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68606, Cadmium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69704

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Total cadmium was not detected in any of the three samples at levels above the calculated CTR CCC value of 1.2 ug/L for total recoverable cadmium.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The hardness-dependent, calculated USEPA California Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (4-day average) for freshwater aquatic life protection for total cadmium, assuming a hardness of 40 mg/L as CaCO3, is 1.2 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68606, Cadmium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69705

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The reporting limit for all three of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria, therefore were not used in the assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The chemical constituent objectives in Table III-1 apply to the water bodies specified. The level for Cadmium is 0.00022 mg/L or .22 ug/L. Note that the objective is for dissolved cadmium, yet only total recoverable cadmium concentrations are available for assessment. The objective assumes a hardness of 40 mg/L.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	68510	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:	Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Reason for Delisting:	Applicable WQS attained; due to restoration activities
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 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 34 samples exceeded the objective for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceeded the objective for MUN. Zero of the one samples exceeded the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 34 samples exceeded the objective for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceeded the objective for MUN. Zero of the one samples exceeded the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. 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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68510, Copper	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69514

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Copper.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68510, 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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 68510, 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68510, Copper	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79076

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Total recoverable copper was not detected in any of the three samples at levels above the MCL value of 1,300 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Drinking Water Standard Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established by the California Department of Public Health for total copper is 1,300 ug/L.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68510, Copper	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69515

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Total recoverable copper was not detected in any of the three samples at levels above the Basin Plan criterion value of 5.6 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan, EPA-approved, site-specific criterion for total recoverable copper in the Sacramento River (and tributaries) above Hamilton City of 5.6 ug/l, assuming a hardness of 40 mg/l as CaCO3.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	68756	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:	Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 34 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. Zero of the one sample exceed the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. 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. Zero of the 34 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. Zero of the one sample exceed the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. 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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68756, Zinc	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69695

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Zinc.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 and San Joaquin River Basins)

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68756, 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 68756, 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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 68756, Zinc	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69696

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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:

EPA approved site specific chronic criteria for the Sacramento River (and tributaries) above Hamilton City, a zinc criterion of ug/l (maximum concentration) assuming a hardness of 40 mg/l as CaCO3.

Guideline Reference:

Metals and hardness data in Sacramento River (below Keswick Dam and below Shasta Dam), 2000-2004

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	74416	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A 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. Seven 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. 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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74416, 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 74416, 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:

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 reproduction toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as decreased reproduction that is statistically different from controls at the 95% confidence level.

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.
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 74416, 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:

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:

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 74416, 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74416, 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 74416, Toxicity	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69683

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan.

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:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at station 508SACBLF.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected in June 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74416, 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:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90381	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1, 1-dichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90381, 1, 1-dichloroethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69600

Pollutant:

1, 1-dichloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.The California Primary MCL is 5 ug/L.

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:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90382	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1, 3 -dichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90382, 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79163

Pollutant:

1, 3 -dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to 1,3-Dichlorobenzene is 763 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90382, 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69601

Pollutant:

1, 3 -dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90435	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1, 4 -dichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90435, 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79058

Pollutant:

1, 4 -dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the objective value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90435, 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79160

Pollutant:

1, 4 -dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to 1,4-Dichlorobenzene is 763 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90436	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90436, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69602

Pollutant:

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 California Primary MCL is 200 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90495	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90495, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69603

Pollutant:

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The CTR value (0.17 ug/L) is lower than the ML (Minimum Level) reported for this pollutant. Therefore, there are actually 0 samples and 0 exceedances.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90437	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90437, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69605

Pollutant:

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Since the RL is greater than the criterion value of 0.60 ug/L, these samples cannot be counted.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90437, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69604

Pollutant:

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for freshwater aquatic life protection, chronic Lowest Observed Effect Level is 9,400 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90497	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90497, 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69618

Pollutant:

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 National Toxics Rule (USEPA) for sources of drinking water is 0.057 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliances

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90497, 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79157

Pollutant:

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All of the analytical results for 1,1-Dichloroethylene are below the evaluation guideline value; none of the three samples exceed the objective.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, acute toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Level) for 1,1-Dichloroethylene for freshwater aquatic life protection is 11,600 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliances

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	69755	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69755, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69619

Pollutant:

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90498	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90498, 1,2-Dichloroethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69620

Pollutant:

1,2-Dichloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three have "ML" (~reporting limit) of 1.0, which is greater than the promulgated criterion (objective) of 0.38 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	89611	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloroethylene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89611, 1,2-Dichloroethylene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69621

Pollutant:

1,2-Dichloroethylene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All two samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	89612	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloropropane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89612, 1,2-Dichloropropane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69622

Pollutant:

1,2-Dichloropropane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three have "ML" (~reporting limit) of 1.0, which is greater than the promulgated criterion (objective) of 0.52 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	89614	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	1,3-Dichloropropene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89614, 1,3-Dichloropropene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69623

Pollutant:

1,3-Dichloropropene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All 3 samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90628	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the ttwo samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of two samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90628, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79059

Pollutant:

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Three water samples were collected. Two sample results are below the objective. The sample result (non-detect) for the third sample is above the objective and could not be used in the assessment because it does not meet the Quantification of Chemical Concentrations requirements in section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy. "When the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis."

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) objective value for human health protection (30-day average), for sources of drinking water (water & fish consumption) is 2.1 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90628, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79161

Pollutant:

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is 970 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90620	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Acenaphthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90620, Acenaphthene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79162

Pollutant:

Acenaphthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Acenaphthene is 1,700 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90621	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Acrolein
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90621, Acrolein	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69636

Pollutant:

Acrolein

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were ND at a ML (Minimum Level) or RL (Reporting Limit) of 5 ug/L. Therefore, 0 samples, 0 exceedances.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recomm. WQ Criteria, 4-day average is 3 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90621, Acrolein	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69637

Pollutant:

Acrolein

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90622	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Aldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90622, Aldrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69638

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90679	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90679, Anthracene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69640

Pollutant:

Anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Anthracene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for anthracene is 845 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90679, Anthracene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69641

Pollutant:

Anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 USEPA IRIS Reference Dose is 2100 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83935	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Antimony
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83935, Antimony	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69653

Pollutant:

Antimony

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criterion.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 Calif. Dept. of Public Health, primary MCL, is 6 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	100396	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Arsenic
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 samples exceed the COLD evaluation guideline for sediment. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water quality objective. Zero of the ten samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.Zero of 1 samples exceed the COLD evaluation guideline for sediment, zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water quality objective and zero of the ten samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of sixteen samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100396, Arsenic	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69654

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100396, Arsenic	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69655

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criterion. Total arsenic levels were reported as either not detected or, if detected, at levels lower than the CTR CCC value of 150 ug/L for dissolved arsenic.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average (dissolved), is 150 ug/L.

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:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100396, Arsenic	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69656

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 10 samples exceeded the criterion.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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:

Comments in opposition to the delisting of Laguna de Santa Rosa. Sebastopol, CA

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90680	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Benzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90680, Benzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69657

Pollutant:

Benzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Benzene was not detected in any of the three samples at levels above the California primary MCL value of 1 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90681	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90681, Benzo(a)anthracene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69673

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90681, Benzo(a)anthracene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69658

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Benzo(a)anthracene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90682	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90682, Benzo(a)pyrene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69674

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Benzo(a)pyrene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1,450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90682, Benzo(a)pyrene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69675

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90801	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90801, Benzo[b]fluoranthene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69676

Pollutant:

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90742	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90742, Benzo[k]fluoranthene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69677

Pollutant:

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	100397	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Beryllium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the California Department of Public Health primary MCL for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the California Department of Public Health primary MCL for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100397, Beryllium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69688

Pollutant:

Beryllium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	89782	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89782, Bifenthrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69690

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was not assessed because, after the laboratory method detection limit result was organic carbon-normalized, the result was above the evaluation guideline and, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90744	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Bromoform
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90744, Bromoform	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69691

Pollutant:

Bromoform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90745	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Carbon tetrachloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90745, Carbon tetrachloride	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69706

Pollutant:

Carbon tetrachloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Carbon tetrachloride was not detected in any of the three samples at levels above the CTR value of 1 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90802	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water Evaluation Guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water Evaluation Guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water Criteria/Objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90802, Chlordane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79167

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical results for the three samples were below the method detection limit and could not be used in the assessment because they do not meet the Quantification of Chemical Concentrations requirements in section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy. "When the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis."

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to chlordane is 0.0043 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90802, Chlordane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79067

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) chlordane value for human health protection (30-day average), for sources of drinking water (water & fish consumption) is 0.00057 ug/L.

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:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90802, Chlordane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69707

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins).

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 Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 508SACBLF (Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90803	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chlorobenzene (mono)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90803, Chlorobenzene (mono)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69708

Pollutant:

Chlorobenzene (mono)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Chlorobenzene was not detected in any of the three samples at levels above the primary MCL value of 70 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90804	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chlorodibromomethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the one samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of one samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90804, Chlorodibromomethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79069

Pollutant:

Chlorodibromomethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results (non-detects) exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Dibromochloromethane is 11,000 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each year 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90804, Chlorodibromomethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69709

Pollutant:

Chlorodibromomethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical result for the single sample does not exceed the objective value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) Chlorodibromomethane objective value for human health protection (30-day average), for sources of drinking water (water & fish consumption) is 0.41 ug/L.

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:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in 2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90916	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chloroform
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90916, Chloroform	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69498

Pollutant:

Chloroform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 USEPA National Recomm. WQ Criteria, water+fish consump. is 5.7 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82909	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82909, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69499

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for chlorpyrifos, 0.177 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.77 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.77 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for chlorpyrifos from Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	83069	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chromium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD evaluation guideline for sediment. Zero of the one samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD evaluation guideline for sediment. Zero of the one samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83069, Chromium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69501

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected in 2008 was below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83069, Chromium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69500

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Chromium.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	83397	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chromium, hexavalent
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN. Zero of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN. Zero of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83397, Chromium, hexavalent	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69503

Pollutant:

Chromium, hexavalent

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criteria. The criteria compared against was for dissolved hexavalent chromium.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average (dissolved), is 11 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83397, Chromium, hexavalent	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69502

Pollutant:

Chromium, hexavalent

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the three samples collected exceeded the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for hexavalent chromium is 10ug/L

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83449	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chromium, trivalent
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83449, Chromium, trivalent	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69512

Pollutant:

Chromium, trivalent

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Toxics Rule (USEPA) expressed as a 4-day average for total chromium (III) is 98 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliances

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83449, Chromium, trivalent	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69511

Pollutant:

Chromium, trivalent

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 California Dept. of Public Health, primary MCL, is 50 ug/L for Total Chromium.

Guideline Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Guideline Reference:

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90858	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Chrysene (C1-C4)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90858, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79068

Pollutant:

Chrysene (C1-C4)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical results of all three water samples above the objective and could not be used in the assessment because they do not meet the Quantification of Chemical Concentrations requirements in section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy. "When the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis."

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90858, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69513

Pollutant:

Chrysene (C1-C4)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Chrysene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Chrysene is 1,290 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90859	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Cyanide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90859, Cyanide	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69516

Pollutant:

Cyanide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below CTR criterion.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration 4-day average value of 5.2 ug/L for cyanide

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83183	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83183, Cyfluthrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69521

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for cyfluthrin, 0.11 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	83184	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83184, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69522

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.044 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.44 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.44 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	82337	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82337, Cypermethrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69523

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.3 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90860	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90860, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69525

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90860, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69524

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (28.0 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDD (o,p' + p,p') is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	83237	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83237, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69530

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (31.3 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83237, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69531

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90861	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90861, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69532

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (62.9 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90861, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69533

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83288	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Deltamethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83288, Deltamethrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69534

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for deltamethrin, 0.079 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.79 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	83342	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83342, Diazinon	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69539

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.1 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for diazinon, 1.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 11 ug/g OC). The LC50 (11 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for diazinon (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90917	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90917, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69540

Pollutant:

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90918	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Dichlorobromomethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90918, Dichlorobromomethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69541

Pollutant:

Dichlorobromomethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Reporting Limit is greater than the CTR value; therefore there are 0 assessable sample results.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90918, Dichlorobromomethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79165

Pollutant:

Dichlorobromomethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical results for both samples do not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Bromodichloromethane is 11,000 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in 2009 and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90919	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Dichloromethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90919, Dichloromethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79154

Pollutant:

Dichloromethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results (non-detects) exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) is 11,000 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90919, Dichloromethane	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69542

Pollutant:

Dichloromethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in the year 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90975	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of the one samples exceeded the COLD water Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90975, Dieldrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69550

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average is .056 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90975, Dieldrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69543

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (61.8 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90975, Dieldrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69549

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	99983	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Endosulfan
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of the zero samples exceed the objective for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for MUN. Zero of the zero samples exceed the objective for COLD. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99983, Endosulfan	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69551

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), freshwater aquatic life protection, continuous concentration (4-day average) for alpha-Endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99983, Endosulfan	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69552

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All 3 samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93815	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life from exposure for COLD, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA), Human Health Protection for Sources of Drinking Water (water & fish consumption) for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life from exposure for COLD, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA), Human Health Protection for Sources of Drinking Water (water & fish consumption) for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93815, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79170

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical result values for all three water sample are below the evaluation guideline value

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, to protect freshwater aquatic life from exposure (24-hour average) to Endosulfan Sulfate is 0.056 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93815, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79085

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical result values for all three water sample are below the evaluation Guideline value

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The California Inland Surface Waters ¿ California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA), Human Health Protection (30-day average), Sources of Drinking Water (water & fish consumption) value is 110 ug/L

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90976	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Endrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of the four samples exceed the COLD water Criteria/Objective and Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded and MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of four samples exceed the COLD water Criteria and Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90976, Endrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69560

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All 3 samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90976, Endrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69553

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (207 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90976, Endrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69554

Pollutant:

Endrin

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All of the samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average, total is 0.036 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91031	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Endrin aldehyde
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91031, Endrin aldehyde	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79105

Pollutant:

Endrin aldehyde

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The analytical result values for all three water sample are below the Evaluation Guideline value

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The California Inland Surface Waters ¿ California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA), Human Health Protection (30-day average), Sources of Drinking Water (water & fish consumption) value is 0.76 ug/L

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83455	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83455, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69561

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.15 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91032	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Ethylbenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91032, Ethylbenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69562

Pollutant:

Ethylbenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All 3 samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83458	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Fenpropathrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83458, Fenpropathrin	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69563

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; one ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for fenpropathrin (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91091	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91091, Fluoranthene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69570

Pollutant:

Fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91091, Fluoranthene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69564

Pollutant:

Fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Fluoranthene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Fluoranthene is 2,230 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91093	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Fluorene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91093, Fluorene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69571

Pollutant:

Fluorene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Fluorene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluorene is 536 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91093, Fluorene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69572

Pollutant:

Fluorene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91094	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed each of the COLD and MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed each of the COLD and MUN water quality objectives and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91094, Heptachlor	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69574

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91094, Heptachlor	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69573

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average, total is 0.0038 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91212	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the MUN, zero of the zero samples exceed the COLD water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the MUN, zero of the zero samples exceed the COLD water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91212, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79106

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Ramona Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Westside San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The CTR objective for Heptachlor epoxide to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0001 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91212, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79147

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

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:

Three analytical results for water samples collected for Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704; one water sample value in each of three years: 2008, 2009, 2010

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Westside San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The CTR Continuous Concentration (4-day average) objective protecting freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to heptachlor epoxide, is 0.0038 ug/L. [California Inland Surface Waters ¿ California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA),]

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

Temporal Representation:

Water sample results were reported once per year in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91153	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91153, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79172

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to hexachlorobenzene is 250 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91153, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79152

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample values for the three sample values were below the method detection limit and could not be used in the assessment because they do not meet the Quantification of Chemical Concentrations requirements in section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy. "When the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis."

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) hexachlorobenzene objective value for human health protection (30-day average), for sources of drinking water (water & fish consumption) is 0.00075 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91154	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobutadiene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91154, Hexachlorobutadiene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79174

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobutadiene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Hexachlorobutadiene levels (non-detect) in all three water samples were below the method detection limit and could not be used in the assessment because they do not meet the Quantification of Chemical Concentrations requirements in section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy. "When the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis."

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to hexachlorobutadiene is 9.3 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91154, Hexachlorobutadiene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79153

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobutadiene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) hexachlorobutadiene objective value for human health protection (30-day average), for sources of drinking water (water & fish consumption) is 0.44 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91155	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91155, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69575

Pollutant:

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83560	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Lead
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for COLD. Zero of the one samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for COLD. Zero of the one samples exceed the sediment guideline for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the objective for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83560, Lead	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69589

Pollutant:

Lead

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) expressed as a 4-day average is 0.92 ug/L. A hardness of 40 mg/L was assumed.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83560, Lead	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69587

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Lead.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83560, Lead	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69588

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 3 samples did not exceed the criterion.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90629	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90629, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69590

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment sample was collected and analyzed for the SWAMP.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90629, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69591

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All 3 samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	84007	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of the one sample exceeds the sediment guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of the one sample exceeds the sediment guideline for COLD. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84007, Mercury	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69606

Pollutant:

Mercury

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were above guideline. The criteria compared against was for dissolved mercury.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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:

USEPA National Recommended WQ Criteria (4-day avg) for dissolved mercury is 0.77 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84007, Mercury	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69592

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Mercury.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90690	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Methyl Parathion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90690, Methyl Parathion	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69607

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for methyl parathion, 0.6 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 6 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for methyl parathion (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90688	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Methyl bromide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90688, Methyl bromide	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79066

Pollutant:

Methyl bromide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample results (non-detect) for all three samples do not exceed the objective value

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90688, Methyl bromide	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79166

Pollutant:

Methyl bromide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample results (non-detect) for all three samples do not exceed the evaluation guideline value

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Methyl bromide is 11,000 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	87293	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87293, N-Nitrosodimethylamine	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69625

Pollutant:

N-Nitrosodimethylamine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90808	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	N-Nitrosodipropylamine
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90808, N-Nitrosodipropylamine	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79155

Pollutant:

N-Nitrosodipropylamine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90808, N-Nitrosodipropylamine	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79178

Pollutant:

N-Nitrosodipropylamine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the analytical results for the three samples exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to N-Nitrosodiphenylamine is 5,850 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90807	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Naphthalene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the COLD water Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four samples exceeded the COLD water Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90807, Naphthalene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79177

Pollutant:

Naphthalene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

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:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Naphthalene is 620 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90807, Naphthalene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69608

Pollutant:

Naphthalene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Naphthalene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for naphthalene is 561 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	84009	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Nickel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the one samples exceed the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the one samples exceed the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84009, Nickel	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69611

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) expressed as a 4-day average is 24 ug/L, assuming a hardness of 40 mg/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84009, Nickel	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69610

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Nickel.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	94274	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Neither of two water sample ammonia concentrations exceed the calculated CCC evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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. Neither of two water sample ammonia concentrations exceed the calculated CCC evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that this water body and pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94274, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69624

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of two samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for total ammonia. Sample values for ammonia are assumed to be for total ammonia as N.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 chronic thirty-day average criteria for total ammonia when fish early life stages are present is dependent on pH and temperature of the water body. The criteria ranged from 4.1 mg/L to 5.1 mg/L.

Guideline Reference:

2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at site R-001 upstream of discharge.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected during July 2008 and July 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected as part of NPDES Permit CA0077704 requirements.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91097	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight samples exceed each of the COLD and Fish Spawning water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the eight samples exceed each of the COLD and Fish Spawning water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91097, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69627

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: None of 8 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as SPWN is 7.0 mg/L. (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:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Sacramento River Below Keswick-508XSRBKK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected monthly between 2/8/2007 and 8/7/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91097, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69626

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: None of 8 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD is 7.0 mg/L. In the Sacramento River from Keswick Dam to Hamilton City, 9.0 mg/L from 1 June to 31 August. (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:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Sacramento River Below Keswick-508XSRBKK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected monthly between 2/8/2007 and 8/7/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.


DECISION ID	91157	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91157, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69628

Pollutant:

PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Naphthalene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for PAH's is 22,800 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cosumnes River at Twin Cities Road - 531SAC001]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/22/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91158	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water Criteria and water Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded the MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water Criteria and water Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91158, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69629

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment. (The criteria was for total PCBs, whereas the samples were sampled for their individual 1016, 1221, etc., but the MDL is too high for any of these constituents.)

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average is 0.014 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91158, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69643

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins).

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:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 508SACBLF (Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91158, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69642

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.(The criteria was for total PCBs, whereas the samples were sampled for their individual 1016, 1221, etc., but the MDL is too high for any of these constituents.)

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91215	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91215, Pentachlorophenol (PCP)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69645

Pollutant:

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average at pH 6.5 is 4 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91215, Pentachlorophenol (PCP)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69646

Pollutant:

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Reporting Limit is greater than the CTR value; therefore, there are 0 sample results to assess for PCP.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	84010	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Permethrin, total
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the sediment evaluation guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84010, Permethrin, total	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69647

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (4 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.89 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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 evaluation guideline value for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al. 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91216	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Phenanthrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91216, Phenanthrene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69659

Pollutant:

Phenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Phenanthrene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Phenanthrene is 1,170 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91217	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91217, Pyrene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69661

Pollutant:

Pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91217, Pyrene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69660

Pollutant:

Pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Pyrene.

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Pyrene is 1,520 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	84051	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Selenium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the criteria for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded the criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84051, Selenium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69662

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxic Rule(USEPA), 4-day average, total, is 5.0 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	84095	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Silver
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the criteria for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded the criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84095, Silver	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79156

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three sample results (two were non-detect) for silver were below the secondary MCL for silver.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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 Calif. Dept. of Public Health secondary MCL for silver is 100 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91274	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Tetrachloroethylene/PCE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of zero samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91274, Tetrachloroethylene/PCE	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79070

Pollutant:

Tetrachloroethylene/PCE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the analytical results for the three samples exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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 National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) is 5,280 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91274, Tetrachloroethylene/PCE	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69663

Pollutant:

Tetrachloroethylene/PCE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	94083	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Thallium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure for COLD, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule (USEPA) objective value for human health protection for sources of drinking water and fish consumption for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure for COLD, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule (USEPA) objective value for human health protection for sources of drinking water and fish consumption for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94083, Thallium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79179

Pollutant:

Thallium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to Thallium is 40 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94083, Thallium	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69664

Pollutant:

Thallium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the objective value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA) Thallium objective value for human health protection (30-day average), for sources of drinking water (water & fish consumption) is 1.7 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91275	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Toluene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91275, Toluene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69678

Pollutant:

Toluene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91336	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the COLD water Criteria and water Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD water Criteria and water Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91336, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69680

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment. The 4,4' DDT criterion is applicable to Total DDT. Total DDT is the sum of 4,4- and 2,4-isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average, total is 0.001 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91336, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69679

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (572 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

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:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs (sum DDT + sum DDD + sum DDE) is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek) was collected at one monitoring site [ Sacramento River @ Balls Ferry - 508SACBLF]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91337	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed each of the COLD and MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed each of the COLD and MUN water quality objectives and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91337, Toxaphene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69682

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91337, Toxaphene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69681

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

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:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The California Toxics Rule (USEPA), 4-day average, total is 0.0002 ug/L.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, in 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91339	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Trichloroethene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91339, Trichloroethene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69693

Pollutant:

Trichloroethene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below the objective value..

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91339, Trichloroethene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79180

Pollutant:

Trichloroethene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute exposure to Trichloroethene is 45,000 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River at Anderson.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91398	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	Vinyl chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91398, Vinyl chloride	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69694

Pollutant:

Vinyl chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Minimum Level (~reporting limit) is less than the CTR value, so we cannot assess this data with this objective. Therefore, 0 samples, 0 exceedances.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83879	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the criteria for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83879, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79169

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three water samples (non-detect) results are below the objective.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83879, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79060

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three water samples (non-detect) results are below the objective.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90623	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90623, alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69639

Pollutant:

alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Since the Reporting Limit is greater than the CTR value, there are 0 assessable sample results.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90743	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90743, beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69689

Pollutant:

beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The method detection limit for all 3 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83924	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for COLD. Zero of the three samples exceed the water column criteria for MUN. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83924, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79164

Pollutant:

beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three water samples (non-detect) results are below the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The beta-Endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83924, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79064

Pollutant:

beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three water samples (non-detect) results are below the objective.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90630	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	m-Dichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90630, m-Dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79159

Pollutant:

m-Dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to m-Dichlorobenzene is 763 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91036	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	o-Dichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of three samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91036, o-Dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79065

Pollutant:

o-Dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the water quality objective value

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91036, o-Dichlorobenzene	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

79158

Pollutant:

o-Dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the three sample results exceeded the evaluation guideline value.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criterion, Lowest Observed Effect Level to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic exposure to o-Dichlorobenzene is 763 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91214	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

Pollutant:	p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91214, p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)	Region 5
Sacramento River (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)

LOE ID:

69644

Pollutant:

p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All three samples were below criteria.

Data Reference:

Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008.

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Samples were collected from station R-001 (40.46889, -122.27917) in the Sacramento River.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected for the Anderson WPCP under NPDES Permit #CA0077704.

QAPP Information Reference(s):