Water Body Name: | Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5581000020080808203922 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
73622 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the water samples showed significant toxicity (reduced growth in Selenastrum) and exceed the evaluation guideline for the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, but the samples did not show significant toxicity to either Ceriodaphnia or Pimephales. A single sediment sample did not show significant toxicity to Hyallela and does not exceed evaluation guideline for the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of the four available water samples showed significant toxicity (reduced growth in Selenastrum), exceeding the evaluation guideline for WARM and a single sediment sample did not show significant toxicity to Hyallela and does not exceed evaluation guideline for the COLD, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from 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 Staff 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: | 68706 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). Significant toxicity occurred in both the growth and survival tests. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 558PKC010. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in April 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and followed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22987 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2006 to January 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Fair. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22988 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2006 to January 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Fair. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of 4 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Four samples collected at Packwood Creek exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:27 June 2006 (74)31 July 2006 (68)28 August 2006 (73)29 January 2007 (72) | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2006 to January 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
70403 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The four water samples all had concentrations below the reporting limit (1 mg/L) and the reporting limit is greater than the water quality objective (0.025 mg/L). Therefore, the sample results could not be assessed with the power and certainty of the Listing Policy (section 6.1.5.5).
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The four water samples all had concentrations below the reporting limit (1 mg/L) and the reporting limit is greater than the water quality objective (0.025 mg/L). Therefore, the sample results could not be assessed with the power and certainty of the Listing Policy (section 6.1.5.5). This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that this water body and pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 95560 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ammonia levels in four water samples were all below the reporting limit (1 mg/L), which is greater than the water quality objective (0.025 mg/L) and, therefore, could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain un-ionized ammonia in amounts which adversely affect beneficial uses. In no case shall the discharge of wastes cause concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters. [Tulare Lake Basin Plan, 2014] | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between June 27, 2006 and January 29, 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
67537 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68678 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67541 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Bifenthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67545 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68680 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
91685 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68681 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 558PKC010 (Packwood Creek). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67543 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68682 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.77 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for chlorpyrifos, 0.177 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.77 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.77 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for chlorpyrifos from Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67544 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68683 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67542 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68684 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67563 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68685 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.1 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for cyfluthrin, 0.11 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67564 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68686 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.44 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.044 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.44 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.44 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67562 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68687 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (0.3 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.3 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
91522 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68688 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (28.0 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDD (o,p' + p,p') is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67565 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68689 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (31.3 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
92623 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68690 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (62.9 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67569 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68691 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.79 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for deltamethrin, 0.79 ug/g OC, is the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67572 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68692 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (11 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for diazinon, 1.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 11 ug/g OC). The LC50 (11 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for diazinon (Ding et al. 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
92624 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68693 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (61.8 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
92625 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68694 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (207 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67571 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68695 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.5 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67567 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; one ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for fenpropathrin (Ding et al. 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
71656 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. None of 4 samples exceeded the USEPA Water Contact Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. In addition, 0 of 4 samples exceeded the USEPA Non-Contact Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 5 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7529 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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: | E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 235 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 27 2006 to Jan 29 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7554 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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: | E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 409 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 27 2006 to Jan 29 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
67568 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68697 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
92681 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68698 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | One sediment sample was collected and analyzed for the SWAMP. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
94814 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for WARM.and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68699 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
92682 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68700 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (10 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (6 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for methyl parathion, 0.6 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 6 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for methyl parathion (Ding et al. 2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67573 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two samples exceed the WARM Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the two samples exceed the WARM Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68701 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
69894 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
This pollutant was considered for listing under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from one line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 4 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 4 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Staff 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: | 8711 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate-N. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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: | Nitrate-N levels should not to exceed 100 mg/L (USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 27 2006 to Jan 29 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72522 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed.
This pollutant was originally considered for listing under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from one line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that only 4 samples are available and a minimum of 5 is needed for evaluation under section 3.2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data or information was available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to reassess this water body segment and pollutant. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Staff 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: | 8708 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Dissolved Oxygen. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan Objective sets the minimum Dissolved Oxygen content at 5 mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 27 2006 to Jan 29 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92683 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68703 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 558PKC010 (Packwood Creek). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67576 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin, total |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68704 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (4 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (8.9 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al. 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
74685 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 4 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 4 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.
The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Staff 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: | 8712 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006) Selenium levels should not to exceed 5 ug/L (CTR) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 27 2006 to Jan 29 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92684 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68705 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (572 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs (sum DDT + sum DDD + sum DDE) is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67577 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Staff 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: | 68707 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
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: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Packwood Creek - 558PKC010] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
72316 |
Region 5 |
Packwood Creek (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that only 4 samples are available and a minimum of 5 samples are needed for evaluation under section 3.2.
The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Staff 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: | 8709 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.3 (Basin Plan Objective) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Packwood Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 27 2006 to Jan 29 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||