| Water Body Name: | Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5192200020080731222408 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
144997 |
Region 5 |
Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| 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)(2020) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.5 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 4.11 when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the CWA section 303(d) List. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess concentrations of mercury in fish tissues. LOEs 95511 and 22610 are replaced with LOE 227261. LOE 227261 is a reassessment of the same data following the statewide mercury objectives adopted in 2017. LOEs 95512 and 22621 are replaced with LOE 227490. LOE 227490 is a reassessment of the same data following the statewide mercury objectives adopted in 2017. LOEs 95511, 22610, 95512, and 22621 were not used in the final listing decision due to use of the new objectives and will be removed from the decision during a future listing cycle. LOE 227261: 1 of 1 samples exceed the sportfish mercury objective and consist of 11 trophic level 4 fish. Fish lengths are within CDFW length limits. LOE 227490: 2 of 2 samples exceed the sportfish mercury objective and consist of 8 trophic level 4 fish. Fish lengths are within CDFW length limits. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Tissue samples were compared with the sport fish objective and 3 of 3 samples exceed for the COMM beneficial use. The samples consist of trophic level 4 fish and are from a minimum of 2 annual averages and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
| 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: | 95511 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 27 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 16 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Natomas Cross Canal. A total of 16 out of 27 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight methylmercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.32 ppm for all 27 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species:
Carp- 5 samples, 0.06-0.27 ppm (average 0.15 ppm), 1 exceedance; Largemouth Bass- 12 samples, 0.30-0.71 ppm (average 0.47 ppm), 12 exceedances; Redear Sunfish- 5 samples, 0.09-0.24 ppm (average 0.18 ppm), 1 exceedance; Sacramento Sucker- 5 samples, 0.09-0.36 ppm (average 0.2 ppm), 2 exceedance. All 27 samples were collected from fish with total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Fish Mercury Project, Year 2 Annual Report, Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis. Final Report. October 2007 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The U.S. EPA 304(a)-recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/Kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Cross Canal, approximately 0.7 miles upstream from its confluence with the Sacramento River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during one sampling event on 8/2/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Cross Canal watershed (USGS, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML, 2005). This data was also collected and analyzed in accordance with the CALFED Mercury Project QAPP (Puckett and van Buuren, 2000). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 95512 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Natomas Cross Canal. A total of 2 out of 5 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.38 ppm for all 5 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species:
Carp- 2 composite samples, both 0.12 ppm, no exceedances; Largemouth Bass- 2 composite samples, 0.40 and 1.10 ppm, 2 exceedances; Redear Sunfish: one 6-fish composite sample, 0.16 ppm, no exceedances. All 5 composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program: Freshwater Bioaccumulation Monitoring: TSM Program Data 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The U.S. EPA 304(a)-recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/Kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Natomas Cross Canal, approximately 2 miles upstream from its confluence with the Sacramento River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during four sampling events on 7/24/1986, 8/21/1987, 9/7/1988, and 11/1/1990. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Cross Canal watershed (USGS, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Quality Control for the fish sampling, tissue preparation, mercury analysis, and QA sample analysis portions of this study was conducted as described in the Toxic Substance Monitoring Reports for 1986, 1987, 1988-89 and 1990 (Rasmussen, 1988; Rasmussen and Starrett, 1989; Rasmussen and Blethrow, 1991; Rasmussen, 1992). Additional Quality Control information for the laboratory analysis portions of the data collected in 1990 is found in the Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan prepared by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG, 1990). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22621 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Natomas Cross Canal. A total of 2 out of 5 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.38 ppm for all 5 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Carp- 2 composite samples, both 0.12 ppm, no exceedances; Largemouth Bass- 2 composite samples, 0.40 and 1.10 ppm, 2 exceedances; Redear Sunfish: one 6-fish composite sample, 0.16 ppm, no exceedances. All 5 composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program: Freshwater Bioaccumulation Monitoring: TSM Program Data 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health. This is the concentration in fish tissue that should not be exceeded based on a total fish and shellfish consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg fish/day. (USEPA, 2001) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Natomas Cross Canal, approximately 2 miles upstream from its confluence with the Sacramento River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during four sampling events on 7/24/1986, 8/21/1987, 9/7/1988, and 11/1/1990. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Cross Canal watershed (USGS, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Quality Control for the fish sampling, tissue preparation, mercury analysis, and QA sample analysis portions of this study was conducted as described in the Toxic Substance Monitoring Reports for 1986, 1987, 1988-89 and 1990 (Rasmussen, 1988; Rasmussen and Starrett, 1989; Rasmussen and Blethrow, 1991; Rasmussen, 1992). Additional Quality Control information for the laboratory analysis portions of the data collected in 1990 is found in the Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan prepared by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG, 1990). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 227490 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1978-2000 data for Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 4 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 8 fish were aggregated into 2 annual averages, which consisted of 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Largemouth Bass each composed of 6 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Largemouth Bass each composed of 2 fish per composite). Of these annual averages, 2 average(s), (Year(s): 1987, 1990) exceeded the objective.This LOE does not contain data from fish who's average length was outside of the legal size limits as described by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishing Regulations. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program: Freshwater Bioaccumulation Monitoring: TSM Program Data 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of the Commercial and Sport Fishing beneficial comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027. | ||||
| Guideline 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 519.22.01. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 1987-08-21 and 1990-11-01. When composited fish were collected over multiple days, the first day of fish collection was used as the sample date in the LOE, both for LOE writing, and for averaging period purposes. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good to excellent. Quality Control for fish sampling, tissue preparation, mercury analysis, and QA sample analysis portions of this study for various years were conducted as described in the following Toxic Substance Monitoring Reports: McCleneghan and Rectenwald, 1979; McCleneghan et al., 1980; McCleneghan et al., 1981; La Karo et al., 1982; La Karo, 1983; Agee, 1986; Rasmussen et al., 1987; Rasmussen, 1988; Rasmussen and Starrett, 1989; Rasmussen and Blethrow, 1991; Rasmussen, 1992; Rasmussen, 1993. Additional Quality Control information is found in the Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan (DFG, 1990) for portions of data collected in 1990 and also in the Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (CDFG, 2001) for portions of data collected 1996-2000. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22610 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Natomas Cross Canal. A total of 12 out of 25 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight methylmercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.32 ppm for all 25 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Carp- 5 samples, 0.06-0.27 ppm (average 0.15 ppm), no exceedances; Largemouth Bass- 12 samples, 0.30-0.71 ppm (average 0.47 ppm), 11 exceedances; Redear Sunfish- 3 samples, 0.10-0.24 ppm (average 0.18 ppm), no exceedances; Sacramento Sucker- 5 samples, 0.09-0.36 ppm (average 0.2 ppm), 1 exceedance. All 25 samples were collected from fish with total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish Mercury Project, Year 2 Annual Report, Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis. Final Report. October 2007 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health. This is the concentration in fish tissue that should not be exceeded based on a total fish and shellfish consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg fish/day. (USEPA, 2001) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Cross Canal, approximately 0.7 miles upstream from its confluence with the Sacramento River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during one sampling event on 8/2/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Cross Canal watershed (USGS, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML, 2005). This data was also collected and analyzed in accordance with the CALFED Mercury Project QAPP (Puckett and van Buuren, 2000). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 227261 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 Fish Mercury Project (Year 2) data for Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 4 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 11 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 1 fish species (11 composite(s) of Largemouth Bass each composed of 1 fish per composite). Of these annual averages, 1 average(s), (Year(s): 2006) exceeded the objective.This LOE does not contain data from fish who's average length was outside of the legal size limits as described by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishing Regulations. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish Mercury Project, Year 2 Annual Report, Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis. Final Report. October 2007 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of the Commercial and Sport Fishing beneficial comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027. | ||||
| Guideline 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 519ADVCRC. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2006-08-02 and 2006-08-02. When composited fish were collected over multiple days, the first day of fish collection was used as the sample date in the LOE, both for LOE writing, and for averaging period purposes. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML, 2005). This data was also collected and analyzed in accordance with the CALFED Mercury Project QAPP (Puckett and van Buuren, 2000). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
150212 |
Region 5 |
Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter 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: | 292061 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| 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 USGS California Water Science Center data for Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for DDD(p,p'). | ||||
| Data Reference: | WQ data from the federal Water Quality Portal (WQP) assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4'-DDD criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00083 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: USGS-384649121361501 (NATOMAS CROSS CANAL A VERONA CA). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-10-25 and 2016-10-25 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 292060 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 USGS California Water Science Center data for Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for DDD(p,p'). | ||||
| Data Reference: | WQ data from the federal Water Quality Portal (WQP) assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4'-DDD criterion 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: USGS-384649121361501 (NATOMAS CROSS CANAL A VERONA CA). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-10-25 and 2016-10-25 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
153847 |
Region 5 |
Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
| 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: | 313358 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| 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 USGS California Water Science Center data for Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the upper limit of the range for SpecificConductivity. Additionally, 0 of the 1 samples fall within the range, and 1 of 1 samples fall below the threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | WQ data from the federal Water Quality Portal (WQP) assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference into the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins specifies a range for specific conductance of 900 - 1600 uS/cm assessed as an annual average. | ||||
| 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: USGS-384649121361501 (NATOMAS CROSS CANAL A VERONA CA). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-10-25 and 2016-10-25 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
153227 |
Region 5 |
Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb |
| 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: | Readily available data for this water body have been considered. Although this water body is designated with the Municipal and Domestic Supply beneficial use (MUN), no decision has been made regarding beneficial use support due to a lack of clarity in the status of this water body under the Clean Water Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. A decision regarding the beneficial use support of this water body will be made during a future Integrated Report cycle if it is determined that this water body is classified as a Water of the United States under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. |
| 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 of a lack of clarity in the status of this water body under the Clean Water Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. |
| 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: | 313654 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
| 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 USGS California Water Science Center data for Natomas Cross Canal (Sutter County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Thiobencarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | WQ data from the federal Water Quality Portal (WQP) assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for thiobencarb by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins is 0.001 mg/L assessed as an annual average. | ||||
| 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: USGS-384649121361501 (NATOMAS CROSS CANAL A VERONA CA). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-10 and 2016-05-10 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||