Water Body Name: | Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5081000020080623162543 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
126852 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2023 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. The State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the “ISWEBE Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use, which were adopted on August 7, 2018. Because the salinity level of this waterbody is equal to or less than 1 part per thousand 95 percent or more of the time, the E. coli bacteria objective applies Therefore, this waterbody is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.3 of the Listing Policy using the E. coli objective. A total of three lines of evidence of E. coli data were evaluated for this waterbody. Of these lines of evidence, two are based on historic E. coli data collected prior to 2010. One is based on recent E.coli data, collected since 2010, and compared to the newer E. coli bacteria water quality objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. The two historic lines of evidence were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. The one recent E. coli line of evidence was relied upon to assess water quality standards attainment in this waterbody. The data were collected from 2010-2019. There are adequate data to determine beneficial use support in accordance with the Listing Policy. The data are representative of existing conditions in the waterbody and represent a range of hydrologic conditions (both wet and dry years). With respect to the recent lines of evidence, 41 of 75 STV for E. coli calculated from 2010 to 2019 exceed the E. coli bacteria objective. For these data, Listing Policy section 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in section 4.2 to use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency because the data were collected from inland waters from April 1 through October 31 only, bacterial measurements are indicative of human fecal matter, and there is substantial human contact in the waterbody. Using this exceedance frequency, the number of exceedances is not sufficient to remove this waterbody from the list. No fecal coliform data are used in this assessment because the fecal coliform water quality objective was superseded and is no longer used as the basis of any 303(d) List decision for water contact recreation. Therefore, all lines of evidence available for fecal coliform have been retired. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to against removing this waterbody from the list. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to against removing this waterbody from the list. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194410 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 75 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 41 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 41 of the 75 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 508XACACR | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Water column surveys (e.g. fecal coliform) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition collected 7 samples, from February 2006 to September 2006. Six out of 7 samples exceeded the evaluation objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from February 2006 to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59750 | ||||
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: | 10 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 10 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 and San Joaquin River) | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
DECISION ID |
117999 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188844 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 299.2 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188882 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for 2, 4-D incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.07 mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118020 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 185965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Aldrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 185963 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The established numeric criteria for aldrin to protect aquatic life in freshwater as an instantaneous maximum concentration is 3 ug/L . This established criteria was divided by 2 in order to better represent a CMC value as specified in footnote (g) of Table (b)(1) of the California Toxics Rule, 2000. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186080 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Aldrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117988 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186405 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Azinphos Methyl. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for azinphos methyl for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.01 ug/l (instantaneous maximum) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-19 to 2018-01-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118010 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 8 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117972 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Four line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the nine water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use. None of the nine water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the COLD beneficial use. 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. None of the nine water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use. None of the nine water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the COLD beneficial use. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59736 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
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 agwaiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 objective for cadmium in the Sacramento River and its tributaries above State Hwy 32 bridge at Hamilton City is 0.22 ug/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 59735 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 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 primary maximum contaminant level for cadmium is 5 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 186748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The 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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-16 and 2014-04-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186731 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.005 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-16 and 2014-04-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117973 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186967 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Carbaryl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended water quality criteria 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. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117974 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187161 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187097 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00057 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 186911 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118035 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chloropicrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187319 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloropicrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chloropicrin. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chloropicrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 5.5 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2017-10-25 to 2018-11-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117975 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
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 22 samples exceed the 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 22 samples exceeded the 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187549 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (4 day average)(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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-19 and 2018-08-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117976 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 17 samples exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use, zero of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD in the dissolved fraction, zero of eight samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN in the dissolved fraction and zero of eight 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 17 samples exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use, zero of nine samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD in the dissolved fraction, zero of eight samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN in the dissolved fraction and zero of eight 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: | 187932 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-16 and 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187844 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The 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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-16 and 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187886 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-16 and 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59747 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 secondary maximum contaminant level for copper is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 59748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
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 agwaiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 objective for copper in the Sacramento River and its tributaries above State Hwy 32 bridge at Hamilton City is 5.6 ug/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
118026 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187688 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 8 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118028 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190943 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 7 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-08-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118011 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188241 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 8 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
126847 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188161 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188159 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDD(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
126850 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188054 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00084 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 187997 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDE(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
126851 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188495 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT(p,p) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188434 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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 0.005 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188436 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT(p,p'). Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The DDT-4,4' criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117977 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dacthal |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188028 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dacthal. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dacthal is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of >1100 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) and vascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a \greater-than\" value (for example, > 265,000) and may overestimate toxicity." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118027 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188486 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118030 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Demeton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188327 | ||||
Pollutant: | Demeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Demeton, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for demeton for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.1 ug/l (4 day average) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117979 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
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. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination, which is less than the minimum number of exceedances needed to place the water segment on the section CWA section 303(d) List for toxicants (Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy). The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188274 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L (4 day average)(Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-19 and 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117980 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188773 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 20 samples were collected, 20 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-19 to 2018-08-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117981 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dicofol |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188616 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dicofol. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117982 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188894 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188663 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188681 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118036 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diflubenzuron |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189041 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diflubenzuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Diflubenzuron. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Diflubenzuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.00025 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2017-12-27 to 2018-03-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118013 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189107 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-03-19 and 2018-06-20 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117983 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189044 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Disulfoton. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for disulfoton is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.01 ug/L for chronic toxicity in invertebrates (7 day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117984 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diuron |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188952 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of diuron does not exceed 1.3 ug/L (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria). | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-12-27 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118037 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dodine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189017 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dodine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dodine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dodine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.95 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-03-15 and 2018-04-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117985 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189477 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for endosulfan sulfate for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.056 ug/l (24 hour average) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189475 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189371 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117986 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189403 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189483 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117987 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189672 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189673 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118031 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189779 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 8 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118015 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ethalfluralin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189882 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethalfluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethalfluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethalfluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-03-15 and 2018-06-20 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118016 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189683 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethoprop | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ethoprop. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118029 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189907 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118022 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenthion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189645 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenthion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenthion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.013 ug/L for chronic toxicity in invertebrates (7 day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118038 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Flumioxazin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189953 | ||||
Pollutant: | Flumioxazin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Flumioxazin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Flumioxazin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.49 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-11-30 and 2017-11-30 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117989 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190425 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190369 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190387 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117990 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190394 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190455 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190413 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 6 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117991 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190419 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Hexachlorobenzene. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-21 to 2014-08-20 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190458 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Hexachlorobenzene. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-21 to 2014-08-20 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118025 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190268 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, alpha-. Although a total of 6 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC) criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms is 0.0039 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-02-16 to 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189969 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, alpha-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC) criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118024 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190208 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, beta-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, beta-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118032 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexazinone |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190480 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexazinone | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Hexazinone. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Hexazinone is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 7 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2015-06-17 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117992 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189995 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms only is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190023 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.019 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190167 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117993 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Linuron |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191190 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Linuron. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117994 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191214 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Malathion. Although a total of 21 samples were collected, 7 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of malathion does not exceed 0.028 ug/L (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-19 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118012 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methidathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 190991 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-03-19 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118007 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191563 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methiocarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118008 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methomyl |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191441 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methomyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
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 criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl in the San Joaquin River system is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). " | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-03-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117995 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191363 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria toxicity threshold for methoxychlor for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.03 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191444 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Methoxychlor incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.03 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117996 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192983 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118017 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191432 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Metolachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Metolachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2015-06-17 and 2018-01-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117997 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Mirex |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191656 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mirex. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria criterion continuous concentration for mirex for freshwater aquatic life protection is 0.001 ug/l | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-21 to 2014-08-20 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118021 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Naled |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 191680 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naled | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naled. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Naled is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.045 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-01-19 to 2018-01-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117998 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192378 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 68 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 68 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 10 mg/L (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59765 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) is 10.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/19/2009-9/23/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59766 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate (NO3 as N) is 10.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/28/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
DECISION ID |
118009 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192487 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oryzalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oryzalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 13 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-12-27 and 2018-04-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118014 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Zero samples exceeded the objectives, guidelines, or criteria for beneficial uses applicable to this water segment-pollutant combination. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements (section 6.1.4) and data quantity requirements (section 6.1.5) of the Listing Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 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. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192454 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxyfluorfen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxyfluorfen. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Oxyfluorfen is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.29 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-19 and 2018-02-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
122874 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of eight of 73 samples exceed the water quality objective for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and eight of 73 samples exceed the water quality objective for the fish spawning beneficial use. 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. A total of eight of 73 samples exceed the water quality objective for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and eight of 73 samples exceed the water quality objective for the fish spawning beneficial use. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 208158 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 73 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 8 of 73 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 207941 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 73 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 8 of 73 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as SPWN is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118033 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Paraquat |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192583 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Paraquat. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2017-11-30 to 2018-11-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118018 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 192932 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pendimethalin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pendimethalin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pendimethalin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 5.2 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-10-25 and 2018-01-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
130384 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193015 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 7 samples were collected, 7 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-08-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118019 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phorate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of 14 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. 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. A total of zero of 14 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193016 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118023 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phosmet |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of one line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. 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. A total of zero of five samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193341 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-03-19 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118006 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193286 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 8 samples were collected, 8 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-02-21 to 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118039 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyridaben |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193151 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyridaben | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyridaben. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pyridaben is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.044 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-07-18 to 2018-08-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118001 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A total of two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of zero of seven samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of seven samples exceed the water quality objective for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use. These data are insufficient to determine the applicable beneficial use support rating with the power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. 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. A total of zero of seven samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use and zero of seven samples exceed the water quality objective for the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use. 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193613 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Simazine incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.004 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2015-06-17 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193588 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2015-06-17 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
126629 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 90 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceeded the water quality objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 90 samples, reported as a total concentration or with the fraction not reported, exceeded the water quality objective for MUN, 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: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59749 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant levels for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), an upper level (1,600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2,200 uS/cm). The recommended level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is protective of all drinking water uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230096 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 73 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 73 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117971 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | T-Fluvalinate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193847 | ||||
Pollutant: | T-Fluvalinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for T-Fluvalinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Tau-Fluvalinate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.064 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-02-21 and 2018-09-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
122876 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Pursuant to section 6.1.5.9 of the Listing Policy, this assessment utilized the upper limit of the optimal temperature range for rainbow trout for growth and completion of most life stages to interpret the narrative water quality objective for temperature. 21 of 93 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for COLD. 14 of 76 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fish Migration and Fish Spawning. However, the available data are insufficient to satisfy the Listing Policy requirements for spatial and temporal representation (sections 6.1.5.2 and 6.1.5.3). The surface water grab samples collected did not provide sufficient temporal and spatial representation to determine if temperature conditions experienced by aquatic life were within the optimal temperature range throughout the entire water column or the length of time temperature conditions may have exceeded the optimal temperature range. Available information for this waterbody-pollutant combination is insufficient to determine whether the aquatic beneficial use is supported. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available for this Integrated Report cycle indicating that standards are not met. However, the exceedances of the evaluation guideline indicate that beneficial uses may be threatened. This decision will be reevaluated in the next Integrated Report cycle as more data and information become available. Additional data and information may include information demonstrating that sample location(s) are representative of conditions throughout the waterbody, data from additional sampling locations, continuous monitoring data collected in the waterbody, waterbody-specific information on sensitive resident species, their life stage time frames, and the appropriate temperature thresholds necessary to support each life stage. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59783 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Juoaquin River Basin Plans). | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California (1976) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230583 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 76 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 14 of 76 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 229802 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 76 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 14 of 76 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 230386 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 76 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 14 of 76 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Plans. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118002 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Tetrachlorvinphos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193990 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tetrachlorvinphos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Tetrachlorvinphos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Stirophos(Tetrachlorvinphos) is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.125 ug/L for chronic toxicity in invertebrates (7 day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-09-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118003 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193926 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Dissolved Solids. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for total dissolved solids incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 500 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-04-16 and 2014-04-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118004 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194166 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-21 to 2011-04-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193929 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-21 to 2011-04-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 193831 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Toxaphene. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00073 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2011-04-21 to 2011-04-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118005 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194258 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Trifluralin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.9 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-03-15 and 2018-03-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118040 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ziram |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 194321 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ziram | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ziram. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Ziram is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2018-04-19 to 2018-05-16 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
117978 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 188914 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The alpha-endosulfan criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189142 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189333 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
118000 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189519 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The beta-endosulfan criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189261 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
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 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 189520 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-02-16 and 2015-08-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
122875 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the 91 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for COLD. One of the 74 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for REC-1 and REC-2. 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. Four of the 91 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for COLD. One of the 74 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE for REC-1 and REC-2. 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: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78453 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were collected by the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. The pH of three of the 17 date-averaged sample results were below 6.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (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 from Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road (StationCode 508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected approximately monthly from to 2/8/2007 to 9/23/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected in accordance with the QAPP for the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228355 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 74 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 74 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228613 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 74 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 74 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 228973 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 74 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 74 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Sediment, Toxicity, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (508XACACR) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-23 and 2018-12-19 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Larry Walker Associates. 2010. QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan- Sacramento River Basin | ||||
DECISION ID |
84432 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
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 using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The sample results do not exceed the evaluation guidelines for either the MUN or COLD beneficial uses.
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. The two water sample results do not exceed the evaluation guidelines, 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: | 59732 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California secondary maximum contaminant level for aluminum is 0.2 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 78407 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for freshwater aquatic life protection from chronic exposure (4-day average) to aluminum (continuous concentration) is 87 ug/L. | ||||
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: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 5/15/2007 and 6/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
93653 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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 one 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 available water sample results exceed the calculated CMC values. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the eight available water sample results exceed the calculated CMC for ammonia, and this This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that this water body and pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. |
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: | 78454 | ||||
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: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data was collected by the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. Analytical results for samples collected on the same date were averaged before they were used to calculate potential exceedances. None of the eight ammonia results exceeded the calculated 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at one monitoring site [Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road, StationCode 508XACACR]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Ammonia and pH data were collected monthly between 2/19/2009 and 9/23/2009. | ||||
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 |
84477 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Antimony |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the three water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for the MUN or COLD beneficial uses.
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. None of the three water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for the MUN or COLD beneficial uses. 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: | 78408 | ||||
Pollutant: | Antimony | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Antimony. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary MCL is 6 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on three dates: 4/17/2007, 5/15/2007 and 6/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 78405 | ||||
Pollutant: | Antimony | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Wildlife 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 Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Antimony. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Gold Book states that toxicity to algae occurs at antimony concentrations as low as 610 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Two sets (replicate samples) were collected on each date, 4/17/2007, 5/15/2007 and 6/19/2007. The sample results for each date were averaged before they were assessed. | ||||
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 |
84478 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of eight water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for the COLD and MUN beneficial uses.
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. None of the eight water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for MUN or 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: | 59734 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. Two (replicate) samples were collected on each date; the sample results were averaged before they were assessed. | ||||
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: | 59733 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 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 California primary maximum contaminant level for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
84479 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Barium |
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. Neither of two water sample results exceed exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Neither of two water sample results exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78410 | ||||
Pollutant: | Barium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Barium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for barium is 1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
84480 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Beryllium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the three water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use.
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. None of the three water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use, 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: | 78411 | ||||
Pollutant: | Beryllium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Beryllium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for beryllium is 4 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on three dates: 4/17/2007, 5/15/2007 and 6/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
91780 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of eight samples exceed the water quality objective (no fraction specified) for AGR, and 0 of 8 samples exceed the water quality objective (total fraction) 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. 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 exceed the water quality objective (no fraction specified) for AGR, and 0 of 8 samples exceed the water quality objective (total fraction) for AGR 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: | 78450 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the eight samples collected exceeded the temporal-spatial specific objectives. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB5S Grasslands Bypass FY0708 FY0809 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table III-1 of the Sacramento / San Joaquin basin plan specifies seasonal objectives for trace elements which include Boron. The objectives for Boron are as follows in units of mg/L: 2.0 (15 March through 15 September) 0.8 (monthly mean, 15 March through 15 September) 2.6 (16 September through 14 March) 1.0 (monthly mean, 16 September through 14 March) 1.3 (monthly mean, critical year) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road (508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately monthly from 2/8/07 to 12/19/07. Three sets of of samples were collected on the same days. The sample results were averaged before they were assessed. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sample collection, handling and analysis were performed under the QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79291 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Physical/chemical data extrapolated from upstream or downstream waterbody | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
84524 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium | Chromium (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. None of three available water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the COLD or MUN beneficial uses.
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. None of three available water sample results exceed the water quality objective for COLD or MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59746 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 78409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium (total) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium (total). | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for total chromium is 50 ug/L. | ||||
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: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on three dates: 4/17/2007, 5/15/2007 and 6/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
84566 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the 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. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objective for the 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: | 59762 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
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 agwaiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
80057 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Low Dissolved Oxygen |
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 3.2 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.
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. Four of 6 samples exceeded the minimum DO concentration (7 mg/L) specified in the Basin Plan for COLD and SPWN beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. A minimum of twenty five 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21578 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were taken from the Anderson Creek between March and September 2006. Four samples were below the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration (7 mg/L). | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) minimum dissolved oxygen concentration (for COLD) of 7 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Andersen Creek at Ash Creek Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly between March and September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
84567 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for the COLD or MUN beneficial use.
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. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for COLD or MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 primary maximum contaminant level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 59764 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
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 agwaiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
67684 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceed the water quality objective for MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 sample exceed the water quality objective for MUN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59767 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrite (as N) is 1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/28/2009. | ||||
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. | ||||
DECISION ID |
84705 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for either the COLD or MUN beneficial uses.
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. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for either COLD or MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59768 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 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 California primary maximum contaminant level for selenium is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 59780 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
84706 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the three available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for either the COLD or MUN exceed the water quality objectives for the COLD or MUN beneficial uses.
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. None of the three available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for COLD or MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59782 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 59781 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Ag Waiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 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 secondary maximum contaminant level for silver is 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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 |
84707 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta County) |
||
Pollutant: | Thallium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the three available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for the COLD, COMM or MUN beneficial uses.
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. None of the three available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for COLD, COMM or MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78452 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All three samples were below criteria. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Metals and Nutrients for the City of Anderson, 2006-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22. The Calif. Dept. of Public Health, primary MCL, is 2 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road (station 508XACACR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sample were collected on three dates, monthly, between 4/17/07 and 6/19/07. Two sets of samples were collected on he same date; the sample results were averaged before they were assessed. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected in accordance with the QAPP for the Sacramento Valley Water quality coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79046 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Thallium. | ||||
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 which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Gold Book states that thallium chronic toxicity to one species of fish occurs at concentrations as low as 20 ug/L after 2,600 hours of exposure. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79047 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Thallium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Thallium criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 6,300 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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/17/2007-6/19/2007. | ||||
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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73417 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.
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 6 samples exhibited decreased Ceriodaphnia dubia (an invertebrate species) survival. Zero of 5 samples exhibited decreased Selenastrum capricornutum (a plant species) cell counts. One of 7 samples exhibited decreased Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow, a vertebrate species) survival. Zero of two samples tested with Hyalella azteca showed significantly decreased survival compared to control samples. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21575 | ||||
Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of seven samples tested with Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) showed significant decrease in survival compared to control. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21576 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of two samples tested with Hyalella azteca (algae) showed significantly decreased survival compared to control samples. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control sediment using Dunnetts test in 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. Arcsin squareroot transformation was used when necessary to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Steels Many-One Rank Test was used for comparison to control if these assumptions were not met after transformation. | ||||
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: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21574 | ||||
Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of six samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia (collected on 28 February 2006) exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival (65% survival, compared to 76% survival in the control). | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from February to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21577 | ||||
Pollutant: | Plant Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of five samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were showed significantly decreased cell counts. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Anderson Creek at Ash Creek Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March to September 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
84753 |
Region 5 |
Anderson Creek (Shasta 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for the COLD or MUN beneficial uses.
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. None of the eight available water sample results exceed the water quality objectives for COLD or MUN, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59799 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
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 agwaiver data for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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 objective for zinc in the Sacramento River and its tributaries above State Hwy 32 bridge at Hamilton City is 16 ug/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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: | 59785 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Anderson Creek (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 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 secondary maximum contaminant level for zinc is 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Anderson Creek (Shasta County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Anderson Creek on Ash Creek Road - 508XACACR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007. | ||||
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. | ||||