Water Body Name: | Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5613002120101024223514 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
90609 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66583 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for aldicarb, 6.33 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 63.3 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90756 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 samples exceed the criterion maximum concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion maximum concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD 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 because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66584 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater for aldrin is 1.5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
94672 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, 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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78997 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixteen water samples collected by the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition from Lurline Creek (Colusa County) were analyzed for ammonia, pH and temperature. None of the 16 ammonia results exceeded the calculated ammonia CMC values. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants for Goose Lake Coalition, 2007-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
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. | ||||
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: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at one monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected approximately monthly between 2/9/2007 and 9/17/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data collected under the QAPP for the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
86447 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the criteria. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66586 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86532 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Atrazine |
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 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 the 14 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 14 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66587 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Atrazine, 43 ug/L, is a an EC50 for Lemna gibba (duckweed); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90758 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero 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 zero samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66588 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality criterion for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
100388 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Benomyl |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66589 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Wildlife instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for Benomyl is 8.8 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Fungicides Benomyl, Captan, Chlorothalonil, Maneb, and Ziram to Aquatic Organisms | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90816 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Boron |
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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for AGR. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for AGR and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79497 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Boron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
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: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86533 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Bromacil |
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 the 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66591 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromacil | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Bromacil. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The EC50 for bromacil for Lemna gibba (duckweed) is 45 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86535 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
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 the 16 samples exceed the criteria. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66592 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The cadmium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
85984 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl |
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 the 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66593 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90817 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66594 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion maximum concentration for carbofuran is 0.5 µg/L (DFG 92-3, 1992). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91786 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from one line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this waterbody segment and pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that the none of 15 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 15 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.1 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 5. Pursuant to section 3.1 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 because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66595 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86023 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 the three samples exceed the CTR criteria. 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66596 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/18/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
86058 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
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 the 16 samples exceed the CTR criteria. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66597 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90818 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine |
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 14 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66598 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) for cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90870 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 zero samples exceed the water quality objective (CTR, 2000) criterion for REC-1. 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 water quality objective (CTR, 2000) criterion for REC-1 and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78836 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The DDD method detection limit for all 30 analyzed sample results collected from Lurline Creek (Colusa County) are greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000), for Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) with a limit of 0.00083 ug/L for DDD | ||||
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: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected from Lurline Creek (Colusa County) [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC]. Each sample was analyzed for both DDD(o,p') and DDD(p,p'), for a total of 30 individual sample results. The DDD(o,p') and DDD(p,p') sample results for each sample date were totaled before they were assessed. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on fifteen seven dates approximately monthly between 2/09/2007 and 9/17/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86093 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78888 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The DDE method detection limit for all 30 analyzed sample results collected from Lurline Creek (Colusa County) are greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000), for Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) with a limit of 0.00059 ug/L for DDE | ||||
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: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected from Lurline Creek (Colusa County) [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC]. Each sample was analyzed for both DDE(o,p') and DDE(p,p'), for a total of 30 individual sample results. The DDE(o,p') and DDE(p,p') sample results for each sample date were totaled before they were assessed. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on fifteen seven dates approximately monthly between 2/09/2007 and 9/17/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90871 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66599 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90872 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Demeton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of nine 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 nine samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66603 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Recommended Water Aquatic Life criterion continuous concentration for demeton in freshwater is 0.1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-1/28/2008. | ||||
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 |
93931 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 waterbody segment and pollutant combination is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from one line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this waterbody segment and pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that the none of 15 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 15 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.1 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 5. 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
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 because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66604 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic criterion value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90873 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dicofol |
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 15 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 15 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66605 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Dicofol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Dicofol, 5.9 ug/L, is the MATC for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90927 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66606 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86094 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
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 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 the 15 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 15 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66607 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for dimethoate, 4.3 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 43 ug/L) for Pteronarcys californica (Stonefly); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90928 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton |
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 15 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 15 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66609 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality criterion for disulfoton in freshwater (0.05 ug/L) is an aquatic life maximum (instantaneous) level. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86096 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diuron |
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 the 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78583 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support. None of the 16 sample results were detected at levels above the Diuron criterion of 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Westside San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. The acute exposure (4-day average) value for Diuron is 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at one monitoring site: [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected approximately monthly between 2/9/2007 and 9/17/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75966 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 the 15 samples exceed the CTR criteria. 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 15 samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66610 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan sulfate criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90929 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66611 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91108 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop |
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 15 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 15 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66613 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop, 1.4 ug/L, is the MATC for Daphnia magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
93932 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate |
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 waterbody segment and pollutant combination is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from two lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this waterbody segment and pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that the none of 20 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.1 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. |
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 because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66614 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for glyphosate, 5,500 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 55,000 ug/L) for Chironimus plumosus (Midge). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66615 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants for California Rice Commission, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for glyphosate, 5,500 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 55,000 ug/L) for Chironimus plumosus (Midge). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek; upstream site for CBD5 (F) - 520CRCLCF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/28/2009-9/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission. | ||||
DECISION ID |
91109 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66616 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90611 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 zero samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66617 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) 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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91204 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for REC-1. 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. Three of 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for REC-1 and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66612 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86128 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the CTR criteria. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66618 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90668 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 samples exceed the criterion maximum concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion maximum concentration (CTR, 2000) objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66619 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-HCH (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90670 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Linuron |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66620 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Linuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Linuro, 13.7 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
77656 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 the 15 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 15 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66621 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion, 0.028 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90731 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methidathion |
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 14 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66622 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Methidathion, 0.86 ug/L, is the MATC for Daphina magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90733 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66623 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for methiocarb, 43.6 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 436 ug/L) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86188 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methomyl |
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 the 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66624 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Evaluation Guideline used to assess freshwater aquatic life exposure to Methomyl is 0.5 µg/L (4-day average) (Menconi & Beckman, 1996). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methomyl to Aquatic Organisms in the San Joaquin River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90734 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 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 15 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66625 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer (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 for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90848 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 15 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 15 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66626 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90850 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Molinate |
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 8 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 8 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66627 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Molinate, 600 ug/L, the MATC for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
90907 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66628 | ||||
Pollutant: | N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Monuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for monuron, 330 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 3,300 ug/L) for Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86189 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the CTR criteria. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66629 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86191 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin |
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 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 the 14 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 14 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66630 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Oryzalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin, 15.4 ug/L, is an EC50 for Lemna gibba (Duckweed). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86228 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen |
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 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 the eight 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 eight 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66631 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Oxyfluorfen. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for oxyfluorfen, 20 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 200 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
91262 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 17 samples were not less than 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 17 samples were not less than the water quality objective for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66632 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
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 17 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
Data for Various Pollutants for California Rice Commission, 2004-2009. | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD 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 [Lurline Creek at 99W-520XLRLNC]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected intermittently and monthly between 2/9/2007 and 6/18/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission. | ||||
DECISION ID |
90908 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | 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 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 zero 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 zero samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Ethyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality chronic criterion (4-hour maximum) for parathion, is 0.013 µg/L, is for freshwater aquatic life. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
93985 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin |
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 waterbody segment and pollutant combination is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from two lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this waterbody segment and pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that none of 14 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water sample results exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.1 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. |
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 because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Pendimethalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Pendimethalin, 5.4 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrun capricornutum (Green algae). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
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. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66635 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Pendimethalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants for California Rice Commission, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Pendimethalin, 5.4 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrun capricornutum (Green algae). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek; upstream site for CBD5 (F) - 520CRCLCF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/28/2009-9/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission. | ||||
DECISION ID |
90965 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phorate |
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 15 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 15 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66636 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for phorate, 0.2 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 2.0 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91021 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phosmet |
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 14 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Phosmet, 5.6 ug/L, is the EC50 for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91023 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) |
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 14 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66638 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Prometon, 98 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91082 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Prometryn |
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 14 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66639 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Prometryn, 1 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
74177 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) |
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 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. One of the two 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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. One of two 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66640 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Propanil. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants for California Rice Commission, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Propanil, 0.5 ug/L, is a calculated MATC for Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek; upstream site for CBD5 (F) - 520CRCLCF] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/3/2009-7/8/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission. | ||||
DECISION ID |
91167 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Propargite |
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 8 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 8 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66641 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propargite | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Propargite. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Propargite, 11 ug/L, is a MATC calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
91144 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Propazine |
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 14 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66642 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Propazine, 25 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
86750 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 16 samples exceed the CTR. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the CTR and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66643 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
87389 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 CTR. 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 CTR and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66644 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/18/2007-6/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
87390 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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 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 14 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 14 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66645 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Simazine, 90 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
87391 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Tebuthiuron |
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 16 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 16 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tebuthiuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Tebuthiuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Tebuthiuron, 135 ug/L, is the EC50 for Lemna gibba (Duckweed). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
91201 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
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 8 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 8 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66647 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a MATC calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
91202 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 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 zero samples exceed criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 zero samples exceed criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66648 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-8/19/2008. | ||||
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 |
94674 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
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 and 3.6 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 17 water samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum and survival of Pimephales promelas. Also, zero of 4 sediment samples exhibited significant toxicity to Hyalella azteca. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 17 water samples exhibited significant toxicity and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59197 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum and survival of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. 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. This data set reports a simple pass/fail (Yes/No) code to report toxicity that is equivalent to the SWAMP SL code. | ||||
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 samples were collected at Lurline Creek at 99W. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from April 2007 to September 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidelines For Order NO. R5-2009-0875 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring And Reporting Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. 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 using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected atLurline Creek at 99W. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from April 2007 to August 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidelines For Order NO. R5-2009-0875 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring And Reporting Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
DECISION ID |
87392 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin |
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 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 the eight 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 eight 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66649 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Trifluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin, 1.58 ug/L, is a MATC calculated for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-12/20/2007. | ||||
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 |
93542 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
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 sixteen samples exceed the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. 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 sixteen samples exceed the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater for COLD and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66650 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90757 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66585 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
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: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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 |
90815 |
Region 5 |
Lurline Creek (Colusa County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) 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 15 samples exceed the criterion continuous concentration (CTR, 2000) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 66590 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Lurline Creek (Colusa County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Lurline Creek at 99W - 520XLRLNC] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/9/2007-9/17/2008. | ||||
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. | ||||