| Water Body Name: | Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5184403020190411034407 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
120046 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 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: | 194940 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
147523 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
| 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: | 292900 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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 recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 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: 518PS0229 (Warner Creek ~0.9mi below Hot Springs Cr.). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-22 and 2020-07-22 | ||||
| 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 |
120047 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Anatoxin-A |
| 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: | 194960 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Anatoxin-A | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Anatoxin-A. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 5000 ng/g wet weight action level for Anatoxin-A for edible sport fish and shellfish identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose. (OEHHA 2012) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
151351 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. Two line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. Zero of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. These data indicate that the waterbody is likely unimpaired for Benthic Community Effects and therefore no other pollutant LOEs need be associated with this decision at this time. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. Therefore, this water body is not exceeding the water quality threshold for the protection of the COLD beneficial use. The available information indicates that the waterbody/pollutant combination should not be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 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: | 305604 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 518SED030 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 1.189415143 to 1.189415143. | ||||
| Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 5, Sacramento River sub-region. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 7/24/2007 to 7/24/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were collected using Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols | ||||
| 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: | 305588 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 518PS0229 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.909604188 to 0.909604188. | ||||
| Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 5, Sacramento River sub-region. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 518PS0229. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 7/22/2020 to 7/22/2020. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were collected using Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols | ||||
| 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 |
120036 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 195463 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195449 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
127546 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195652 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195670 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120037 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 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: | 195005 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195027 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dieldrin. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120038 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
| 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: | 195082 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195084 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120039 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 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: | 195121 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195167 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120040 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 195302 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Heptachlor. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120041 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 195275 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195398 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Heptachlor Epoxide. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120042 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 195185 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Hexachlorobenzene. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120043 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 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: | 195236 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195234 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
131067 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess the pollutant. WILD beneficial use: LOE 223440: 1 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 3 prey fish. COMM beneficial use: LOE 223400: 0 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 6 trophic level 3 fish. Fish used in the COMM assessment are limited to lengths that are within Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife legal size limits applicable to this waterbody. 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. 1 of 1 samples exceed the objective for the WILD beneficial use. 0 of 1 samples exceed the objective for the COMM beneficial use. 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. 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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 223400 | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 3 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 6 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 1 fish species (6 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite). 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: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 223440 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. All fish collected within the same calendar year with a reported length of 50-150 mm were averaged into a single sample, independent of species or trophic level, for comparison with the objective. This LOE consists of a total of 3 fish, which were aggregated into 1 annual averages, consisting of 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Brown Trout each composed of 3 fish per composite). Of these annual averages, 1 average(s), (Year(s): 2011) exceeded the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 Prey Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of Wildlife Habitat comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.05 mg/Kg wet weight whole fish samples of any fish species between 50 to 150 mm in total length collected between February 1 and July 31. (SWRCB 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): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-23 and 2011-08-23. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
126772 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Microcystins |
| 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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195421 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Microcystin-YR | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Microcystin-YR. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-YR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195389 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Microcystin-RR | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Microcystin-RR. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-RR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195359 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Microcystin-LR | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Microcystin-LR. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-LR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195311 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Microcystin-LA | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Microcystin-LA. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-LA identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195471 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Microcystins | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Microcystins. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing microcystins identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose, and is equal to the sum of the Microcystin congeners LA, LR, RR, and LY.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
120044 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 195488 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| 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: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mirex. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquaticlife that adversely affect beneficial uses. (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 modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-24 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
147520 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas 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: | 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: | 295602 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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: 518PS0229 (Warner Creek ~0.9mi below Hot Springs Cr.). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-22 and 2020-07-22 | ||||
| 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: | 295553 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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: 518PS0229 (Warner Creek ~0.9mi below Hot Springs Cr.). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-22 and 2020-07-22 | ||||
| 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 |
120045 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| 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 two samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms 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 two samples exceed the evaluation guideline for the commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 195554 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Brown Trout each composed of 3 fish per composite). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (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 OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 518SED030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-23 and 2011-08-24. 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: | SWAMP QAPrP 2008 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
147522 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| 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: | 296585 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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: 518PS0229 (Warner Creek ~0.9mi below Hot Springs Cr.). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-22 and 2020-07-22 | ||||
| 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 |
147521 |
Region 5 |
Warner Creek (Plumas County) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| 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: | 296420 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Warner Creek (Plumas County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 5. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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: 518PS0229 (Warner Creek ~0.9mi below Hot Springs Cr.). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-22 and 2020-07-22 | ||||
| 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. | ||||