Draft California 2018 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: Walker Creek (Glenn County)
Water Body ID: CAR5202100020101024220320
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
91770
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Aldicarb
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91770, Aldicarb
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72068
 
Pollutant: Aldicarb
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for aldicarb, 6.33 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 63.3 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91936
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Aldrin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91936, Aldrin
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72069
 
Pollutant: Aldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater for aldrin is 1.5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
74295
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Ammonia as N, Total
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of 22 water sample results 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. None of the 22 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline, and this sample size is sufficient 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 3.11 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 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74295, Ammonia as N, Total
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 79035
 
Pollutant: Ammonia as N, Total
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Twenty-two water samples collected from Walker Creek (Glenn County) by the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition were analyzed for ammonia, pH and temperature. None of the 22 sample results exceeded the calculated ammonia CMC values.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.
 
SWAMP Data:
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)).
Guideline Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology
  Data for Various Pollutants in South San Joaquin Irrigation District, 2004-2008.
 
Spatial Representation: The 22 water samples were collected from Walker Creek (Glenn County) at two monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC and Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: The 22 water samples were collected from Walker Creek (Glenn County) between 2/8/2007 and 9/23/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
87356
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Arsenic
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87356, Arsenic
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72071
 
Pollutant: Arsenic
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 18
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-3/17/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
87357
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Atrazine
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87357, Atrazine
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72072
 
Pollutant: Atrazine
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Atrazine, 43 ug/L, is a an EC50 for Lemna gibba (duckweed); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91938
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91938, Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72084
 
Pollutant: Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial 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: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. Twenty two samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The National Recommended Water Quality criterion for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.
Guideline Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92038
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Benomyl
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92038, Benomyl
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72085
 
Pollutant: Benomyl
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The data was assessed using the CDFW-derived aquatic life criterion for Benomyl of 8.8 µg/L (1-hour average); 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Benomyl.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for Benomyl is 8.8 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: Hazard Assessment of the Fungicides Benomyl, Captan, Chlorothalonil, Maneb, and Ziram to Aquatic Organisms
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92040
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Boron
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92040, Boron
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 79535
 
Pollutant: Boron
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Agricultural Supply
 
Number of Samples: 16
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Boron.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L).
Guideline Reference: Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985)
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/17/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
87358
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Bromacil
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87358, Bromacil
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72087
 
Pollutant: Bromacil
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Bromacil.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The EC50 for bromacil for Lemna gibba (duckweed) is 45 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86608
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Carbaryl
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86608, Carbaryl
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72088
 
Pollutant: Carbaryl
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L.
Guideline Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
89660
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Carbofuran
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89660, Carbofuran
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72100
 
Pollutant: Carbofuran
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The freshwater criterion maximum concentration for carbofuran is 0.5 µg/L (DFG 92-3, 1992).
Guideline Reference: Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
89719
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Cyanazine
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89719, Cyanazine
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72102
 
Pollutant: Cyanazine
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) for cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
100411
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100411, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72103
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed agwaiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane).
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected monthly between 2/8/2007 and 5/20/2009. One pair of samples was collected on the same date, the results were averaged.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91827
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Demeton
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 17 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 17 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91827, Demeton
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72104
 
Pollutant: Demeton
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 17
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Demeton.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The USEPA Recommended Water Aquatic Life criterion continuous concentration for demeton in freshwater is 0.1 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86609
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn 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 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86609, Diazinon
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72114
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The freshwater chronic criterion value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91878
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Dicofol
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91878, Dicofol
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72115
 
Pollutant: Dicofol
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Dicofol.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Dicofol, 5.9 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91879
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91879, Dieldrin
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72116
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86610
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Dimethoate
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86610, Dimethoate
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72117
 
Pollutant: Dimethoate
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for dimethoate, 4.3 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 43 ug/L) for Pteronarcys californica (Stonefly); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91881
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Disulfoton
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91881, Disulfoton
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72118
 
Pollutant: Disulfoton
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality criterion for disulfoton in freshwater (0.05 ug/L) is an aquatic life maximum (instantaneous) level.
Guideline Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86611
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Diuron
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86611, Diuron
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 78608
 
Pollutant: Diuron
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support. None of the 22 sample results were above the Diuron criterion of 1.3 ug/L.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Westside San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline: Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. The acute exposure (4-day average) value for Diuron is 1.3 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at two monitoring sites: [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC; Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected annually between 2/08/2007 and 9/23/2009
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
100423
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Endrin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100423, Endrin
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72130
 
Pollutant: Endrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
83117
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Ethoprop
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83117, Ethoprop
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72132
 
Pollutant: Ethoprop
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Ethoprop.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Ethoprop, 1.4 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphnia magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86666
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Glyphosate
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 21 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 21 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86666, Glyphosate
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72134
 
Pollutant: Glyphosate
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 21
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for glyphosate, 5,500 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 55,000 ug/L) for Chironimus plumosus (Midge). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-8/19/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
83118
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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 Criteria/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 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 Criteria/Objective 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83118, Heptachlor
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72148
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial 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: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.
Nineteen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91037
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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 Criteria/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 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 Criteria/Objective 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91037, Heptachlor epoxide
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72149
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial 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: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Nineteen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91040
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91040, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72150
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The gamma-HCH (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91980
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Linuron
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91980, Linuron
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72151
 
Pollutant: Linuron
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Linuron.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Linuro, 13.7 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86667
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Malathion
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86667, Malathion
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72152
 
Pollutant: Malathion
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion, 0.028 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92031
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Methidathion
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92031, Methidathion
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72164
 
Pollutant: Methidathion
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Methidathion, 0.86 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphina magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92143
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Methiocarb
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92143, Methiocarb
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72165
 
Pollutant: Methiocarb
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Methiocarb.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for methiocarb, 43.6 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 436 ug/L) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
100409
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Methomyl
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100409, Methomyl
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72166
 
Pollutant: Methomyl
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). (CDFG, 1996)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92144
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Methoxychlor
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92144, Methoxychlor
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72167
 
Pollutant: Methoxychlor
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92146
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Methyl Parathion
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92146, Methyl Parathion
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72182
 
Pollutant: Methyl Parathion
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92191
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Molinate
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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 eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of eight samples 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92191, Molinate
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72183
 
Pollutant: Molinate
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 8
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Molinate, 600 ug/L, the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92192
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92192, N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72184
 
Pollutant: N-(4-Chlorophenyl) -N' methylurea / Monuron
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Monuron.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for monuron, 330 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 3,300 ug/L) for Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86668
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Oryzalin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86668, Oryzalin
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72185
 
Pollutant: Oryzalin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Oryzalin.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin, 15.4 ug/L, is an EC50 for Lemna gibba (Duckweed). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86721
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Oxyfluorfen
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of eight samples 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86721, Oxyfluorfen
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72208
 
Pollutant: Oxyfluorfen
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 8
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Oxyfluorfen.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for oxyfluorfen, 20 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 200 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91543
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Parathion
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91543, Parathion
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72210
 
Pollutant: Parathion
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial 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: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Ethyl. Twenty-three samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The USEPA national ambient water quality chronic criterion (4-hour maximum) for parathion, is 0.013 µg/L, is for freshwater aquatic life.
Guideline Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86722
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Pendimethalin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This 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 eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of eight samples 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86722, Pendimethalin
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72211
 
Pollutant: Pendimethalin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 8
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Pendimethalin.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Pendimethalin, 5.4 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrun capricornutum (Green algae). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91544
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Phorate
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 23 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 23 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91544, Phorate
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72232
 
Pollutant: Phorate
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for phorate, 0.2 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 2.0 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91545
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Phosmet
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91545, Phosmet
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72233
 
Pollutant: Phosmet
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Phosmet, 5.6 ug/L, is the EC50 for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91546
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Prometon (Prometone)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91546, Prometon (Prometone)
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72234
 
Pollutant: Prometon (Prometone)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Prometon, 98 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
100412
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Prometryn
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100412, Prometryn
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72235
 
Pollutant: Prometryn
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Prometryn, 1 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91601
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Propargite
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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 eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of eight samples 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91601, Propargite
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72251
 
Pollutant: Propargite
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 8
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Propargite.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Propargite, 11 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91602
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Propazine
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91602, Propazine
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72252
 
Pollutant: Propazine
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Propazine, 25 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
100410
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Selenium
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100410, Selenium
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72253
 
Pollutant: Selenium
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 16
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/17/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86723
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Simazine
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 20 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86723, Simazine
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72254
 
Pollutant: Simazine
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 20
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Simazine, 90 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86724
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Tebuthiuron
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 22 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86724, Tebuthiuron
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72000
 
Pollutant: Tebuthiuron
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 22
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceed the criterion for Tebuthiuron.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Tebuthiuron, 135 ug/L, is the EC50 for Lemna gibba (Duckweed). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91603
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Thiobencarb/Bolero
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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 eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of eight samples 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91603, Thiobencarb/Bolero
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72001
 
Pollutant: Thiobencarb/Bolero
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 8
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-12/19/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91652
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a 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 Criteria/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 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 Criteria/Objective 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91652, Toxaphene
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72003
 
Pollutant: Toxaphene
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial 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: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Fourteen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-8/20/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
86773
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Trifluralin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 13 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 13 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 86773, Trifluralin
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72016
 
Pollutant: Trifluralin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 13
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 13 samples exceed the criterion for Trifluralin.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin, 1.58 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)
Guideline Reference: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH, Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
91937
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91937, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72070
 
Pollutant: alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
100424
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 19 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of 19 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100424, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72086
 
Pollutant: beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 19
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed agvaiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-5/20/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
95335
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of 24 water samples exceed the E. coli evaluation guideline for REC-1. One of three water samples exceed the fecal coliform water quality objective for REC-1. Another, single, water sample does not exceed the total coliform evaluation guideline for REC-1. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2.

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 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. Ten of 24 water samples exceed the E. coli evaluation guideline for REC-1, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. One of three water samples exceed the fecal coliform water quality objective for REC-1, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Another, single, water sample does not exceed the total coliform evaluation guideline for REC-1, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
 
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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95335, Indicator Bacteria
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72131
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 24
Number of Exceedances: 10
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 10 of 24 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL.
Guideline Reference: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95335, Indicator Bacteria
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72133
 
Pollutant: Fecal Coliform
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the fecal coliform concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of the total number of samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 4/22/2009-6/18/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
92194
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 12 of the 28 samples exceed the water quality objective.

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 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. 12 of 28 samples exceed the water quality objectives and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
 
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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92194, Oxygen, Dissolved
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72209
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Dissolved
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 28
Number of Exceedances: 12
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: 12 of 28 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as WARM is 5.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence was collected at five monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48-520XWLKRC (16 averaged sample results), Walker Creek at Road 46 Bridge FU-520XWLKFU (1 sample result), Walker Creek below Artois-520XWLKBA (1 sample result), Walker Creek near 99W and CR33-520XWLKCH (9 averaged sample results) and Walker Creek Rd 33 between I5 and 99-520XWLK33 (1 sample result)].
Temporal Representation: Data was collected monthly during summer months between 5/16/2007 and 9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
95284
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of 27 water samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum and survival of Pimephales promelas. Zero of 6 sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity.

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 CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Three of 27 water samples exhibited significant toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
 
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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95284, Toxicity
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 59209
 
Pollutant: Sediment Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Toxicity
Matrix: Sediment
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 6
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Six samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.
Guideline Reference: Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were collected at Walker Creek at County Road 48 and Walker Creek near 99W and CR33.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected in from April 2007 to August 2009.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidelines For Order NO. R5-2009-0875 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring And Reporting Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95284, Toxicity
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 59208
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Toxicity
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 27
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Twenty-seven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum and survival of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. This data set reports a simple pass/fail (Yes/No) code to report toxicity that is equivalent to the SWAMP SL code.
Guideline Reference: Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were collected at Walker Creek at County Road 48 and Walker Creek near 99W and CR33.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from April 2007 to September 2009.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidelines For Order NO. R5-2009-0875 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Monitoring And Reporting Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.
 
 
DECISION ID
95863
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by action other than TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: Agriculture
Expected Attainment Date: 2026
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: This water body segment-pollutant combination is being addressed through Basin Plan requirements established under CRWQCB-CVR resolution R5-2014-0041, and implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural discharges. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The Basin Plan identifies numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are achieved.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This water body - pollutant combination is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The evidence indicates that chlorpyrifos concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but existing pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards because the impairment is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Three of 23 available calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion. These exceedances occurred more than once every three years.
4. One of 23 available 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion. This exceedance did not occur more than once every three years.
5. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this water body segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers, who are regulated under enforceable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs).
6. In 2016, the Board adopted Resolution R5-2014-0041 establishing Basin Plan amendments that primarily address the regulation of agricultural pesticide runoff and discharges of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Central Valley which are implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural dischargers. The amendments established numeric water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos and a control program to ensure that the objectives will be attained within a reasonable, specified time frame.

The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval.
7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water.
8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained.
9. 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 described in the lines of evidence associated with this decision, the Regional Water Board determined that this water body and pollutant combination is impaired and that it should be listed as being addressed by another regulatory program that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame because an alternative State regulatory program is in place which can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame.
 
State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval.
7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water.
8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained.
9. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95863, Chlorpyrifos
Region 5     
Walker Creek (Glenn County)
 
LOE ID: 72101
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 23
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Walker Creek (Glenn County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.
Data Reference: Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000).
Guideline Reference: Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek (Glenn County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Walker Creek at County Road 48 - 520XWLKRC, Walker Creek near 99W and CR33 - 520XWLKCH]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 2/8/2007-9/23/2009.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.